■ 


UC-NRLF 


B  3  Tso  ms 


s^ja-itf; 


^Msi^pJi 


^^^^^m^^m^^k 

i' 

J<^^"^ 

:l 

msm 

1 

•^ 

1       ^             '^>.       .^^ 

-^     : 

1.' 

H 

1 

F 
\ 

THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE 
ELIHU  SPEECHES 

JOB,  CHAPS.  32-37 


A  DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OE  BRYN  MAWR  COLLEGE  FOR  THE 
DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

HELEN  HAWLEY  NICHOLS 


Reprinted  from 

The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures 

Vol.  XXVII,  No.  2,  January  1911 


CONTENTS 


Bibliography 

Abbreviations 

History  of  the  Interpretation  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Genuineness  of  the  Elihu  Speeches     .... 

Date  of  Job 

The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches     . 

The  Omissions  of  the  LXX  Text         .        .        .        . 

The  Date  of  the  EUhu  Speeches 

Translation  with  Critical  Notes 

a)  The  Prose  Introduction 

6)  The  Original  EUhu  Speeches   .... 
c)  The  Words  of  a  Second  Wise  Man 


Vita 


5 

9 
11 
16 
22 
28 
40 
61 

66 
66 

88 

96 


236740 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

LITERATURE    ON   JOB 

Augustine,  Annotationum  in  lob.     "Patrologiae  Cursus  Completus,"  Vol. 

34,  c.  825  f.    Paris,  1845. 
Baethgen,  F.,  "Hiob"  in  Kautzsch,  Die  heilige  Schrift  des  A.T.    Leipzig, 

1894. 
Baur,  Gustav,  "Das  Buch  Hiob  und  Dante's  Divina  Commoedia."    Theol. 

Studien  und  Kritiken  (1856),  p.  583. 
Beer,  G.,  "Proverbia  et  lob"  in  Kittel's  Biblica  Hebraica.    Leipzig,  1906. 
Bickell,  G.,  "Krit.  Bearbeitung  des  Jobdialogs,"  Wiener  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  Kunde 

d.  Morgenlandes  (1892),  S.  137  f.,  241  f.,  327  f.  (1893),  S.  1  f.,  153  f. 

,  Das  Buch  Job.    Wien,  1894. 

Bleek,  F.,  Einleitung  ins  A.T.    6.  Aufl.  von  Wellhausen.    Berlin,  1893. 
Boelicke,  M.,  Die  Elihureden  (Dissertation).    Halle,  1879. 
—f—Bradley,  G.,  Lectures  on  the  Book  of  Job.    Oxford,  1887. 
Budde,  K.,  Beitrdge  zur  Kritik  des  Buches  Hiob.    Bonn,  1876. 
,  "Das  Buch  Hiob,"  in  Nowack's  Handkommentar  zum  A.T.    Got- 

tingen,  1896. 
Calvin,  John,  Condones.     1563  (translated  by  A.  Golding,  1593). 
Cheyne,  T.  K.,  Job  and  Solomon.    London,  1887. 
,  "The  Book  of  Job  and  Its  Latest  Commentator,"  in  The  Expositor 

(1897;  fifth  series),  V,  401  f.;  VI,  22  f. 
Cornill,  C,  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  O.T.     (EngUsh  transl. 
,  by  Box).     London,  1907. 

-T"  Cox,  S.  A.,  A  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Job.     London,  1885. 

Davison,  W.  T.,  Art.  "Job"  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  II  (1899). 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  "The  Book  of  Job"  in  the  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge 

and  London,  1884. 
Dehtzsch,  Franz,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Leipzig,  1876. 
Delitzsch,  Friedrich,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Leipzig,  1902. 
Deutsch,   I.,   De  Elihui  sermonum  origine    atque    auctore    (Dissertation). 

Breslau,  1873. 
DiUmann,  A.,  Hiob.    Leipzig,  1869;  4th  ed.,  1891. 
,   "Textkritisches  zum  Buche  Hiob,"   in  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl. 

Akademie  zu  Berlin  (1890),  II,  S.  1345. 
Driver,  S.  R.,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  O.T.     Edinburgh,  New 

York,  1891. 
,  "The  Sceptics  of  the  O.T.,"  Contemporary  Review,  LXIX  (1896), 

257  f. 


6  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Dulim,  B.,  "Das  Buch  Hiob,"  in  Marti' s  Handkommentar  zum  A.T.     Tub- 
ingen", 1897. 
Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  Einleitung  ins  A.T.,    III.    Leipzig,  1803. 
Ewald,  H.,  Die  poetischen  Biicher  des  A.T.,  III.     Gottingen,  1836. 
Galliner,  J.,  Abraham  Ihn  Esra's  Hiohkommentar  (Dissertation).   Berlin,  1901. 
Genung,  J.  F.,  The  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life.    Boston  and  New  York,  1891. 
Gilbert,  G.  H.,  The  Poetry  of  Job.    Chicago,  1889. 
Godet,  F.     Etudes  bibliques.     Paris,  1873. 
Graetz,  H.,   "Das  Zeitalter  d.  griechischen  Uebersetzung  d.  B.   Hiob," 

Monatsschrift,  XXVI  (1877),  83  f. 
Green,  W.  H.,  The  Argument  of  the  Book  of  Job  Unfolded.    New  York,  1874. 
Gregory,  "Expositio  moralis  in  beatum  lob,"  Bibliotheca  Patrum  Latina, 

75,  76. 
Grill,  J.,  Zur  Kritik  der  Komposition  d.  B.  Hiob.    Tubingen,  1890. 
Hahn,  H.  A.,  Kommentar  iiber  das  Buch  Hiob.    Berlin,  1850. 
Hatch,  E.,  "On  Origen's  Re\asion  of  the  LXX  Text  of  Job,"  in  Essays  on 

Biblical  Greek.    Oxford,  1889. 
Heihgstedt,  Commentarius  in  Jobum.     Leipzig,  1842. 
Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Berlin,  1870. 
Herder,  J.  G.,  Vom  Geist  der  Ebrdischen  Poesie,  I.     Dessau,  1782. 
Hirzel,  L.,  Hiob  (2  ed.,  by  Olshausen).     Leipzig,  1852. 
Hitzig,  F.,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Leipzig,  1874. 
Hodges,  Elihu,  or  an  Enquiry  into  the  Principal  Scope  and  Design  of  the  Book 

of  Job.     London,  1750. 
Hoffmann,  J.  G.,  Hiob.    Kiel,  1891. 

Holtzmann,  H.,  in  Stade's  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  II.    Berlin,  1888. 
Jastrow,  M.,  "A  Babylonian  Parallel  to  the  Story  of  Job,"  Journal  of  Bib. 

Lit.  (1905),  XXV,  135-91. 
Jerome,  Praefatio  in  Job,  IX. 
Kleinert,  P.,  "Das  spezifisch  Hebraische  im  Buche  Hiob,"  Theol.  Studien 

und  Kritiken  (1886) ,  26  f . 
Koenig,  E.,  Einleitung  in  das  A.T.     Bonn,  1893. 
,  "The  Problem  of  the  Book  of  Job,"  American  Journal  of  Theol. 

(1904),  VIII,  66  f. 
Kuenen,  A.,  Historisch-kritische  Einleitung,  III  (German  transl.  by  Miiller). 

Leipzig,  1894. 
Laue,  J.  L.,  Die  Komposition  d.  B.  Hiob  (Dissertation).    Halle,  1895. 
Ley,  J.,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Halle,  1903. 
,  "Die  Abfassungszeit  d.  B.  Hiob,"    Theol.  Studien  and   Kritiken 

(1898)  34  f . 
,  "  Characteristik  der  drei  Freunde   Hiobs,"    Theol.    Studien    und 

Kritiken  (1900),  331  f. 
f  "Das  Problem  in  B.  Hiob,"  Neue  Jahrbilcher  fur  Phil.  u.  Pddag. 

(1896),  II,  125. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  7 

Lowth,  R.,  De  sacra  poesi  Hehraeorum  (edited  by  Rosenmueller).    Leipzig, 

1815. 
Macdonald,  D.  B.,  "Some  External  Evidence  on  the  Original  Form  of  the 

Legend  of  Job,"  American  Journal  of  Sem.  Languages  (1897),  XIV, 

137  f. 
Magnus,  E.,  Commentar  zum  Hiob.    Halle,  1851. 
Mandl,  A.,  Die  Peschittha  zu  Hiob.     1892. 

MargoUouth,  D.  H.,  Art.  "Job"  in  Smith's  BihU  Die.  (2d  ed.  1893). 
Marti,  K.,  Geschichte  der  israelitischen  Religion  (1897),  III,  262  f. 
Meinhold,  J.,  "Das  Problem  d.  B.  Hiob,"  Neue  Jahrbucher  f.  deutsche 

Theol.  (1892),  63  f. 
Merx,  A.,  Das  Gedicht  von  Hiob.    Jena,  1871. 
Michaelis,  J.  H.,  Notae  uberiores  in  librum  Jobi.    Halle,  1720. 
Noldeke,  Th.,  Gottinger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  (1865),  S.  575  f. 
Peake,  A.  S.,  "Job"  in  the  Century  Bible.    Edinburgh,  1905. 
Posselt,  Wenzel,  Der  Verfasser  der  Eliu-Reden.    Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1909. 
Renan,  E.,  Le  livre  de  Job.    Paris,  1865. 
Reuss,  E.,  Hiob.    Braunschweig,  1888. 

,  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schrift  d.  A.T.    Braunschweig,  1881. 

Rosenmueller,  E.,  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamentum,  V.    Leipzig,  1824. 

Schlottmann,  H.,  Das  Buch  Hiob. 

Schrader,  E.  (De  Wette-Schrader).  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Ein- 

leitung.    Berlin,  1869. 
Schultens,  A.,  Liber  Jobi.    Leyden,  1737. 
-^Siegfried,  C,  "The  Book  of  Job"  in  Sacred  Books  of  the  O.T.    Baltimore, 

1893. 

,  Art.  "Job"  in  Jew.  Enc. 

Stickel,  J.  G.,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Leipzig,  1842. 

Strack,  H.,  Einleitung  ins  A.T.    Miinchen,  1895. 

Studer,  L.,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Heidelberg,  1832. 

Stuhlmann,  M.,  Hiob.    Hamburg,  1804. 

Umbreit,  F.  W.  C,  Das  Buch  Hiob.    Heidelberg,  1832. 

Vatke,  W.,  Biblische  Theologie,  I.    BerUn,  1835. 

"Watson,  R.  A.,  "The  Book  of  Job"  in  the  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York, 

1892. 
Wellhausen,  J.,  Jahrbucher  f.  deutsche  Theol.  (1871),  XVI,  552. 
Wildeboer,  G.,  Die  Liter atur  des  A.T.     (German  transl.  by  Risch,  1895). 
--  Wright,  G.  H.  B.,  The  Book  of  Job.    London,  1883. 

general  literature 

Bacher,  W.,  Art.  "Targum"  in  Jew.  Enc. 

Barton,  G.  A.,  "  Ecclesiastes,"  International  Critical  Commentary.    Edin- 
burgh and  New  York,  1908. 
Burkitt,  F.  C,  The  Old  Latin  and  The  Itala.    Cambridge,  1896. 


8  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

ChejTie,  T.  K.,  Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile.     New  York,  1898. 
Friedlander,  M.,  Griechische  Philosophie  im  A.T.     Berlin,  1894. 
Gunkel,  H.,  Schopfung  und  Chaos.     Gottingen,  1895. 

,  Zum  religionsgeschichtlichen  Verstdndnis  des  N.T.     Gottingen,  1903. 

L^vi,  The  Hebrew  Text  of  Ecclesiasticus,  "Semitic  Study  Series."    Lej^den, 

1904. 
Peake,  A.  S.,  The  Problem  of  Suffering  in  the  O.T.     London,  1904. 
Schiirer,  E,,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes  (3d  ed.).     Leipzig,  1898. 
Swete,  H.  B.,  An  Introduction  to  the  O.T.  in  Greek.    Cambridge,  1900. 
Toy,    C,    "Proverbs."    International    Critical    Commentary.      Edinburgh, 

1899. 

material  for  text  critical  apparatus 

Veins  Testamentum  Hebraicum  cum  Variis  Lectionibus.     Benjamin  Kennicott, 

Oxford,  1780. 
Vetus  Testamentum  Graecum  cum  Variis  Lectionibus.     Holmes  and  Parsons, 

Oxford,  1823. 
The  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  IL    H.  B.  Swete,  Cambridge,  1887. 
Origenis  Hexaplorum  Quae  Supersunt,  IL     Field,  Oxford,  1875. 
Walton^ s  Polyglott.    London,  1656. 
Sacrorum  Bibliorum  Fragmenta  Copto-Sahidica,  IL     Rome,  1889. 

For  the  readings  of  the  Sahidic  text  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  George 
A.  Barton,  who  kindly  placed  his  collation  of  the  text  at  my  disposal. 

Facsimile  of  Codex  Alexandrinus.    Published  by  the  British  IVIuseum,  1883. 

reference  books 

A  Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  Old  Testament.    Brown,  Driver,  and 

Briggs,  New  York,  1906. 
A  Concordance  to  the  Septuagint.     Hatch  and  Redpath,  Oxford,  1897. 
Talmudic  Dictionary,    Jastrow,  M.,  London  and  New  York,  1903. 
Lexicon  Syriacum.    Brockelmann  C,  Berlin,  1895. 
Thesaurus  Syriacus.    Payne-Smith,  R.,  Oxford,  1879. 


ABBREVIATIONS 

A. = Version  of  Aquila. 

Aeth.=Aethiopic  version 

Alex. = Greek  Codex  Alexandrinus. 

Baeth.=Baethgen  F.,  Hioh  in  Kautzsch's  Die  heilige  Schrift  d.  A.T. 

B.  D.  B.= Brown,  Driver,  and  Briggs,  Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  O.T. 

Bi.=Bickell,  G.,  Das  Buch  Hioh. 

Bodl.=a  Latin  MS  of  the  Old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate  in  the  Bodleian  Library 
(Cod.  Lat.  2426). 

Col.=a  Greek  MS  of  the  LXX,  Cod.  Colbertus,  in  the  Bibliotheque  National 

(1952). 
Del.=DeUtzsch,  Franz,  Das  Buch  Hioh. 
Dil]^=Dillmann,  A.,  Hioh. 
Enc.  Bih.=Enc]jclopaedia  Biblica. 

Ew.=Ewald,  H.,  "Hiob"  in  Die  poetischen  Biicher  des  A.T.,  III. 
l^Jjjt^Hitzig,  F.,  Das  Buch  Hioh. 
Il|rff.= Hoffmann,  G.,  Hioh. 

H.  and  P. = Holmes  and  Parsons,  Vetus  Testamentum  Graecum. 
Hrz.=Hirzel,  L.,  Hioh. 
Jew.  Enc. = Jewish  Encyclopaedia. 
Ken.=Kennicott,  B.,  Vetus  Testamentum  Hebraicum. 
Keth.=Kethib,  the  Hebrew  Text  as  written. 
Kit.  Ed.=Kitters  edition  of  "Job"  in  Biblica  Hebraica. 
LXX=  Greek  Septuagint  version. 
MT=The  Massoretic  pointed  text. 

Marm.=A  Latin  MS  found  in  the  monastery  of  Marmoutiers. 
01s.  =  01shausen  in  2d  ed.  of  L.  Hirzel's  Hioh. 
P. = Priestly  document  of  the  Hexateuch,  ca.  450. 
Qr.=Qere,  the  Hebrew  text  as  read. 
Sah.=Sahidic  version. 
Sieg.= Siegfried,  C,  The  Book  of  Job. 
Stud.  =  Studer,  L.,  Das  Buch  Hioh. 
Sym.=Version  of  SjTiimachus. 
Syr.=Syriac,  Peshitto  version. 
S3T:-Hex.=S5Tiac  Hexapla  version. 
Tar.=Targum  on  Job,  or  Aramaic  version. 
Theo.= Version  of  Theodotion. 

Vat.=A  Greek  MS  of  the  LXX  in  the  Vatican  (346,  numbered  by  H.  and 
Vet.  Lat. = Old  Latin  version.  [P.  248). 

Vul.= Vulgate  version. 
Wr.= Wright,  G.  H.  B.,  The  Book  of  Job. 

9 


THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ELIHU  SPEECHES 
(JOB,  CHAPS.  32-37) 

HISTORY  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ELIHU  SPEECHES 

The  speeches  with  which  this  discussion  is  concerned  constitute 
chaps.  32-37  of  the  Book  of  Job.  In  agreement  with  the  verdict 
of  the  majority  of  modern  scholars  and  for  reasons  to  be  considered 
later,  this  discussion  assumes  that  the  Elihu  Speeches  are  not  an 
integral  and  original  part  of  the  poem.  But  their  history  and  that 
of  their  interpretation  are  inevitably  bound  up  with  those  of  the 
Book  of  Job.  Though  Job  without  the  Elihu  Speeches  would  be 
artistically  more  perfect,  the  Elihu  Speeches  separated  from  the 
poem  could  have  no  significance. 

Scholars  previous  to  the  nineteenth  century  did  not  question 
the  genuineness  of  the  speeches.  Stuhlmann^  in  1804  was  the  first 
to  suggest  that  they  formed  a  later  addition  to  the  poem.  Yet  the 
judgment  passed  upon  Elihu  by  earlier  critics  is  still  of  interest  for 
the  interpretation  of  his  contribution. 

The  rabbis  devote  far  less  attention  to  him  in  the  Talmud  than 
his  own  claims  would  seem  to  have  warranted.  In  the  Babylonian 
Talmud^  he  is  reckoned  with  the  seven  prophets  of  the  Gentiles: 
Balaam,  his  father,  Job,  Eliphaz,  Bildad,  Zophar,  and  Elihu.  It 
was  later  maintained,  however,  that  all  these  prophets  were  Israelites, 
who  prophesied  primarily  concerning  the  Gentiles.  A  discussion 
once  arose  between  R.  Akiba,^  who  believed  Elihu  was  Balaam,  and 
R.  Eleazar,  who  contended  that  he  must  represent  Isaac  because  of 
his  name  Barachel.  With  surprising  insight  Rabbi  Judah^  main- 
tained that  Job's  words  were  in  praise  of  God,  more  than  Elihu's. 

In  the  Testament  of  Job^ — a  Greek  apocryphal  form  of  the  story 
— Elihu  appears  as  a  Satanic  beast,  and  when  the  friends  are  par- 
doned Elihu  does  not  receive  forgiveness. 

»  Hioh,  1804. 

2  Baba  Bathra,  156. 

3  Jer.  Talmud,  Sotah,  V,  20d. 

*  Ex.  R.  34:1;    Jew.  Enc,  art.  "Job."' 
'  See  "Testament  of  Job"  in  Jew  Enc,  VII. 

11 


12  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

The  early  Christian  Fathers  were  by  no  means  admirers  of  EUhu. 
Jerome  in  his  commentary  on  Job^  agreed  with  the  opinion  of  the 
Talmudist  that  EHhu  represented  Balaam  and  was  therefore  a  false 
prophet,  while  Gregory  the  Great  ^  believed  that  Elihu  had  right 
understanding  of  the  matter  but  his  words  were  proud  and  arrogant. 
The  heretical  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,^  whose  opinions  concerning 
Job  were  cited  as  evidence  against  him,  found  Elihu's  words  if  pos- 
sible more  offensive  than  those  of  the  friends. 

Jewish  criticism  of  a  later  period  seems  decidedly  more  favorable 
to  Elihu.  Ibn  Esra*  expresses  the  opinion,  in  a  commentary  which 
dates  from  about  1140,  that  the  true  solution  of  the  problem  is  to  be 
found  in  Elihu's  words.  Job  is  there  taught  by  the  consideration 
of  nature's  mysteries  not  to  seek  full  understanding  of  God's  justice 
and  the  friends  are  reproved  for  their  insufficient  conception  of  God's 
providence. 

The  remarkable  theory  was  advocated  by  Lightfoot^  that  Elihu 
was  the  real  author  of  the  poem.  Michaelis*'  and  Schultens'^  looked 
upon  him  with  favor,  as  did  Calvin,^  and  to  Bishop  Lowth^  Elihu's 
gentleness  appeared  in  beautiful  contrast  to  the  harshness  of  Job's 
other  censors.  In  1750  an  Englishman  named  Hodges^"  devoted 
an  entire  treatise  to  an  attempt  to  show  that  Elihu  was  an  antitype 
of  Christ  and  therefore  his  words  were  similar  to  the  Yahweh 
Speeches. 

After  centuries  of  alternately  over-harsh  or  over-commendatory 
estimates  of  his  worth,  it  remained  for  the  nineteenth  century  to 
question  his  place  in  the  book.  Though  Stuhlmann  believed  the 
poem  itself  a  pre-Mosaic  work,  he  assigned  to  the  speeches  of  Elihu 
a  post-exilic  date.  His  chief  arguments  against  their  genuineness 
were  that  they  rendered  the  Yahweh  Speeches  superfluous  and  that 
they  were  inferior  in  style  to  the  remainder  of  the  book. 

1  Praefatio  in  Job.'^IX.. 

2  Expositio  moralis  in  beatum  lob  (Bibliotheca  Patrum  Latina  75,  76). 
'  Mansi's  Councils,  IX,  col.  200  f. 

*  Abraham  Ibn  Esra's  Hiobkommentar,  Julius  Galliner  (Dissertation,  1901). 

6  Chronol.  V.  T.,  p.  25  (quoted  by  Michaelis) . 

'  Notae  Uberiores  in  librum  Jobi  (1720).  '  Liber  Jobi  (1737). 

'  Condones  (1563).     Translated  by  Arthur  Golding,  1593. 

'  De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum  (1753). 

'"  Elihu,  or  an  Enquiry  into  the  Principal  Scope  and  Design'of  the  Book  of  Job  (1750). 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  13 

From  that  time  until  the  present  the  discussion  of  the  EUhu 
Speeches  has  been  largely  concerned  with  the  question  of  their 
genuineness.  It  will  be  simpler  to  give  a  list  of  the  important  names 
identified  with  either  decision  and  to  discuss  afterward  special 
treatments  of  the  subject.  In  favor  of  their  genuineness  are:  Jahn/ 
Staeudlein,^  Berthold,^  Gesenius,^  Schaerer,^  Rosenmueller,^  Umbreit,'' 
Bruno  Bauer,^  Vaihinger,^  Stickel/°  Haevernick/^  Hahn,^^  Schlott- 
mann/^  Hengstenberg,^'*  Deutsch/^  Bunsen/^  Kamphausen/^  Green/^ 
Boelicke,^^  Godet,'°  Cox,-^  Briggs,-^  Genung,^^  Wildeboer,^*  Cornillj^s 
Budde,^^  Posselt.2'^  It  should  be  mentioned  that  Bunsen  and  Kamp- 
hausen  suggest  that  the  speeches  were  added  later  by  the  original 
poet  to  avoid  misunderstanding  of  the  poem. 

Against  the  genuineness  of  the  speeches  range  themselves  in  long 
array  after  Stuhlmann:     Eichhorn,^^  Bernstein,-^  Vatke,^°  Ewald,^^ 

1  Einleitung  in  das  AUe  Testament,  II. 

2  Beitrage  zur  Philosophie  und  Geschichte  der  Sittenlehre,  II. 
'  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des  Alten  Testaments,  V  (1815). 
^  Geschichte  der  hebrdischen  Sprache. 

6  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1818). 

6  Scholia  in  Vet.  Test.  (1824).  ;  ;: 

'  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1S32). 
'  Die  Religion  des  Alten  Testaments,  II. 

9  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1842).  '"  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1842). 

"  Handbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  ins  AUe  Testament,  3  Theil  (1849). 

12  Commentar  iXber  das  Buch  Hiob  (1850). 

13  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1851).  "  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1870). 
^^  De  Elihui  Sermonum  Origins  atque  Auclore  (Dissertation,  1873). 

16  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1863),  S.  1810. 

1'  Bleek,  Einl.,  S.  661.     (These  two  are  quoted  by  Budde  in  his  Commentar,  S.  xvii.) 

18  Argument  of  Job  Unfolded  (1873). 

19  Die  Elihureden  (Dissertation,  1879). 

2»  Etudes  bibliques  (transl.  by  Lyttelton,  1875).  ; 

"  A  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Job  (1885). 

22  Pres.  Review  (1885),  p.  353. 

23  The  Epic  of  the  Inner  life  (1891). 

2<  Die  letterkunde  des  Ouden  Verbonds  (1893)  (German  transl.  by  Risch,  1895). 

25  Introduction  to  the  Can.  Bks.  of  the  O.T.  (English  transl.  by  Box,  1907). 

26  Beitrage  zur  Kritik  des  Buches  Hiob  (1876);    Das  Buch  Hiob  (1896). 
"Der  Verfasser  der  Eliu-Reden  (1909). 

28  Einleitung  ins  A.T.,  V  (1824). 

29  Keil's  und  Tzschirner's  Analekten,  III. 
"  Biblische  Theologie,  I  (1835). 

'1  Die  poetischen  Bucher  des  A.T.      3  Theil  (1836). 


14  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Hirzel/  Knobel,^  Heiligstedt,^  Magnus,'*  Renan,^  Simson,^  Schra- 
der/  Dillmann,**  Merx,^  Hitzig,io  Deli^zsch,ii  Studer/^  Davidson,!^ 
Wright/^  Kleinert/^  Holtzmann,i«  Cheyne/  Reuss/»  Grill/^  Hoff- 
mann,2o  Driver/^  Koenig,-^  Bickell,^^  Margoliouth,-^  Siegfried,^^ 
Kuenen,26  Baethgen,^^  Laue,^^  Strack,^^  Meinhold,^"  Marti,^!  Duhm,32 
Davison,^^  Friedrich  Delitzsch,^'*  Ley,^^  Peake.^^ 

Those  who  have  defended  Ehhu  in  the  critical  debate  have  usually 
found  in  his  words  the  positive  solution  of  the  problem,  which  the 
poem  without  them  fails  to  give,  and  a  preparation  for  the  Theoph- 
any.  But  even  among  some  modern  scholars  an  exactly  opposite 
view  has  been  held.  Herder,^^  who  called  Elihu  "ein  lauter  Schat- 
ten,"  may  be  considered  an  early  exponent  of  it.  Hahn  and  Umbreit 
uphold  a  similar  theory,  and  more  recently  in  this  country  Briggs 

1  Hiob  (1839). 

2  De  Carminis  Jobi  argumento  (1835). 
'  Commentarius  in  Johum  (1842). 

4  Commentar  zum  Hiob  (1851).  *  Le  Livre  de  Job  (1860). 

5  Zur  Kritik  des  Buches  Hiob  (1861). 

'  (de  Wette-Schrader)   Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  (1869). 
8  Hiob  (1869),  4th  ed.,  1891.  '  Das  Gedicht  von  Hiob  (1871). 

•o  Das  Buck  Hiob  (1874).  "  Das  Buck  Hiob  (1876).  12  d^s  Buck  Hiob  (1881). 

13  "The  Book  of  Job"  in  the  Cambridge  Bible  (1884). 
»  The  Book  of  Job  (1883). 

"  "Das  spezifisch  Hebraische  im  Buche  Hiob,"  in  Theol.  St.  Kr.  (1886),  S.  26  f. 
'6  In  Stade's  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  II,  S.  348  (1888). 
"  Job  and  Solomon  (1887).  is  Hiob  (1888). 

"  Zur  Kritik  der  Komposition  des  Buches  Hiob  (1890). 
20  Hiob  (1891). 

S'  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  O.T.  (1891). 

"  Einleitung  ins  A.T.  (1893).  -^  Das  Buck  Hiob  (1894). 

"  Art.  "Job"  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet.  (1893). 
«  "The  Book  of  Job"  in  Polychrome  Bible  (1893). 
2«  Historisch-kritische  Einleitung,  3  Theil  (transl.  by  Mtiller,  1894). 
2'  Kautzsch's  Die  heilige  Schriften  des  A.T.  (1896). 
2'  Die  Komposition  des  Buches  Hiob  (Dissertation,  1895). 
'^'Einleitung  ins  A.T.  (1895). 

30  "Das  Problem  des  Buches  Hiob,"  in  Neue  Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsche  Theologie  (1892), 
Band  I,  S.  63. 

'I  Geschichte  der  israelitischen  Religion,  III,  S.  262  (1897). 

"  Hiob  (1897). 

"Art.  "Job"  in  Hastings'  Bib.  Die,  II  (1899). 

"  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1902).  "  Das  Buch  Hiob  (1903). 

'6  "Job,"  Century  Bible  (1905). 

"  Vom  Geist  der  Ebraischen  Poesie,  I  (1782). 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  15 

and  Genung.  According  to  this  view  Elihu  sums  up  the  argument 
of  the  friends  in  all  its  essential  weakness  to  show  that  the  mystery 
is  unsolvable  by  human  wisdom  and  thus  to  prepare  the  reader  for 
the  great  revelation  of  Yahweh  in  the  chapters  which  follow.  The 
author  has  intentionally  characterized  Elihu  as  a  bombastic  and 
over-confident  youth  in  order  to  emphasize  the  inadequacy  of  his 
wisdom.  Genung  finds  an  exquisite  dramatic  fitness  and  grim 
irony  in  the  claim  which  Elihu  makes  and  his  later  humiliation. 

We  must  agree  with  Budde  that  this  is  of  all  explanations  the 
most  improbable.  This  kind  of  subtle  irony  would  be  more  natural 
to  a  modern  mind  than  to  a  Hebrew  poet.  Moreover,  the  theory 
shows  a  singular  lack  of  appreciation  for  the  sincerity  and  real  worth 
of  Elihu's  words.  They  .are  earnest  and  earnestly  meant  by  their 
author. 

After  Stuhlmann,  the  next  severe  attacks  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  Elihu  Speeches  were  made  by  Ewald  in  1836  and  Hirzel  in 
1839.  They  urged  the  peculiarities  of  the  language  of  Elihu  as 
indubitable  evidence  against  him.  Stickel  answered  this  charge 
in  1842  by  a  detailed  study  of  the  linguistic  evidence  and  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  was  not  sufficient  to  condemn  the  speeches. 

In  1873  Emmanuel  Deutsch  published  a  dissertation  which 
reviewed  the  controversy  up  to  that  date.  He  found  a  convincing 
argument  for  the  speeches  in  the  fact  that  Elihu  takes  a  higher 
ground  than  the  friends  and  supplies  the  deficiencies  of  the  earlier 
discussion.  But  his  argument  is  rather  an  apology  for  Elihu  than 
a  scholarly  defense  of  his  place  in  the  poem. 

A  far  more  effective  defense  was  made  by  Budde  in  1876.  Fol- 
lowing Stickel's  plan,  he  made  a  careful  comparison  of  the  diction 
of  chaps.  32-37  with  that  of  the  poem  and  expressed  the  conviction 
"dass  die  Echtheit  der  Elihu-Reden  ihrem  sprachlichen  Charakter 
gegeniiber  vollkommen  moglich  bleibt."  His  thorough  study  estab- 
lished the  fact  that  the  linguistic  argument  must  be  strongly  sup- 
ported by  other  arguments  to  renc^r  an  adverse  judgment  decisive. 

Budde  was  followed  by  Boelicke  in  a  dissertation  on  the  speeches, 
which  maintained  their  genuineness. 

Among  recent  defenders  of  Elihu  may  be  mentioned  Cornill  and 
Wildeboer.     Though   admitting   striking   contrasts   between   these 


16  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

chapters  and  the  rest  of  the  book,  they  yet  find  in  them  the  pro- 
found and  positive  solution  of  the  problem,  which  they  believe  the 
poet  must  have  given.  They,  with  Budde,  suggest  that  the  formal 
incompleteness  of  the  latter  half  of  the  dialogue  may  be  due  to  lack 
of  revision  by  the  author,  a  fact  which  might  also  account  for  the 
inferior  style  of  the  Elihu  chapters. 

In  his  commentary  on  Job,  Budde  again  took  up  the  defense; 
this  time  less  from  the  standpoint  of  language  than  from  that  of 
interpretation.  He  admits  that  the  speeches  as  a  whole  make  a 
somewhat  unfavorable  impression  on  him  but  he  believes  that  the 
removal  of  numerous  glosses  will  do  much  to  alter  this  impression. 
The  aim  of  the  poet,  as  Budde  interprets  it,  is  to  reveal  to  Job  his 
sin  of  hidden  spiritual  pride  and  to  bring  him  to  penitence.  Only 
after  this  experience  could  he  be  pardoned  and  restored.  It  is 
Elihu's  mission  to  bring  him  to  the  true  understanding  of  his  trial, 
and  the  chapters  are  therefore  indispensable  in  the  scheme  of  the 
poem.     Cornill  also  holds  this  interpretation. 

The  most  recent  special  treatment  of  the  speeches  is  that  of 
Wenzel  Posselt.  The  arguments  against  their  genuineness  are  con- 
sidered with  thoroughness  and  fairness  but  no  convincing  evidence 
is  offered  in  their  defense. 

In  the  following  general  summary  of  the  arguments  employed 
by  Elihu's  defenders,  those  are  chiefly  considered  which  assume  the 
positive  worth  of  his  contribution.  Many  of  the  same  arguments 
are,  however,  employed  with  either  interpretation. 

genuineness  of  the  elihu  speeches 

Content. — 1.  Aside  from  the  speeches  the  poet  brings  no  positive 
answer  to  Job's  problem.  The  Yahweh  Speeches  merely  bring  the 
hero  to  submission. 

2.  Elihu  offers  a  positive  teaching  which  is  in  advance  of  that  of 
the  friends  and  at  the  very  summit  of  Old  Testament  thought. 

a)  Job  may  not  because  of  his  own  trials  forget  the  divine  justice 
and  wisdom  which  are  the  order  of  the  universe. 

6)  Pain  and  suffering  are  educative — a  means  of  blessing  in 
God's  hands  and  a  proof  of  his  love. 

c)  Suffering  is  to  bring  to  light  hidden  sin,  and  to  destroy  it. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  17 

3.  The  solution  could  not  be  put  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh,  who 
would  thus  descend  to  the  level  of  human  debate,  but  must  be 
offered  by  another  speaker.  Elihu's  somewhat  exalted  view  of  him- 
self and  his  extreme  zeal  are  due  to  youthful  enthusiasm. 

Relation  to  the  poem. — 1.  The  speeches  prepare  for  the  Theophany 
by  the  description  of  the  storm. 

2.  Elihu  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Prologue  because  he  represents 
an  impartial  bystander,  who  enters  the  discussiom  later  than  the 
others.  A  more  convincing  suggestion  is  that  the  poet  took  the  three 
friends  from  tradition,  but  invented  the  figure  of  Elihu.  This 
suggestion  might  explain  also  the  different  character  of  his  name. 

3.  Elihu  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Epilogue  because  his  words  are 
taken  up  and  tacitly  justified  in  the  speeches  of  Yahweh. 

4.  Job  does  not  answer  because  Elihu  has  brought  conviction. 
The  negative  interpretation  would  explain  his  silence  on  the  ground 
that  Ehhu  has  said  nothing  new. 

5.  The  prose  introduction  is  necessary  in  order  to  explain  why 
Elihu  has  not  earlier  entered  the  discussion. 

6.  A  later  interpolator  would,  in  general,  have  taken  more  pains 
to  disguise  his  work  and  to  liken  it  in  all  details  to  that  of  the  original 
author. 

Style. — 1.  The  greater  number  of  Aramaisms  in  Elihu's  speech  is 
an  artistic  touch  of  the  poet  to  indicate  the  speaker's  Aramaic  origin. 

2.  The  tedium  and  inferiority  of  his  style  are  to  be  attributed 
to  the  unfinished  character  of  the  latter  portion  of  the  poem.  They 
are  also,  in  part,  due  to  glosses. 

3.  The  mention  of  Job's  name  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between 
him  and  the  friends  in  address. 

4.  The  use  of  quotations  from  the  earlier  dialogue  is  to  lend 
emphasis  to  the  speaker's  arguments. 

The  above  summary  does  not  pretend  to  include  all  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  brought  forward  in  defense  of  the  Elihu 
Speeches.  Not  all  the  arguments  mentioned  are  of  equal  weight, 
nor  have  all  been  equally  emphasized.  Most  stress  has  legitimately 
been  laid  by  serious  scholars  on  the  relation  of  the  speeches  to  the 
development  of  the  thought  of  the  poem. 


18  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Without  replying  definitely  to  each  of  the  points  suggested  we 
shall  attempt  to  restate  what  seem  to  us  the  conclusive  reasons 
for  believing  that  the  Elihu  Speeches  and  Job  had  not  a  common 
author.  No  originality  can  be  claimed  for  such  a  statement,  for 
the  evidence  has  been  collected  and  presented  by  a  host  of  scholars. 
For  the  same  reason  it  would  be  futile  to  attempt  to  trace  each 
suggestion  to  its  author. 

It  seems  a  better  arrangement  in  this  case  to  reverse  the  order 
of  the  discussion  and  consider  first  those  characteristics  of  relation- 
ship and  style  which  lead  most  naturally  to  questions  concerning 
the  Elihu  Speeches. 

Relation  to  the  poem. — 1.  Elihu  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Prologue 
or  Epilogue.  The  former  omission  might  be  explained  naturally 
enough  by  his  later  entrance,  but  the  latter  is  not  so  easily  disposed 
of.  Even  though  Yahweh's  words  may  implicitly  sanction  Elihu's, 
the  Epilogue,  which  so  definitely  metes  out  reward  and  punishment, 
should  have  awarded  Elihu  his  due. 

2.  The  brief  subscription  after  chap.  31,  "The  words  of  Job  are 
ended,"  is  somewhat  surprising  if  wTitten  by  the  author  of  the  poem, 
for  Job  speaks  again  in  chap.  42.  It  appears  suspiciously  like  the 
addition  of  a  later  hand. 

3.  The  opening  words  of  chap.  38,  ''Who  is  this  that  darkeneth 
counsel  by  words  without  knowledge,"  can  hardly  be  supposed  to 
refer  to  Elihu  and  are  yet  difficult  to  explain  as  referring  to  Job's 
soliloquy  in  chap.  31,  if  six  chapters  of  discussion  have  intervened. 
The  connection  is  not  impossible,  but  it  would  be  more  natural 
if  chap.  38  followed  immediately  on  chap.  31.  This  impression  is 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  appearance  of  Yahweh  seems  a 
direct  response  to  Job's  demand  for  a  hearing  in  the  last  verses  of 
chap.  31. 

4.  The  introduction  of  a  new  speaker  at  this  point  in  the  poem 
is  a  surprising  and  inartistic  development.  After  the  round  of  the 
dialogues  and  Job's  final  cry,  the  moment  is  certainly  ripe  for  the 
denouement.  The  special  prose  introduction,  however,  loses  much 
of  its  significance  when  vv.  2-5  in  chap.  32  are  considered  a 
secondary  addition.  The  remaining  verses  say  no  more  than  the 
entrance  of  a  new  speaker  would  demand.     Even  Elihu's  symbolic 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  19 

name  need  not  call  for  remark,  if  he  was  intended  as  the  bearer  of 
the  poet's  answer. 

5.  One  assumption  of  the  defenders  of  these  speeches  is,  however, 
without  justification.  It  is  by  no  means  self-evident  that  a  later 
writer  would  have  taken  more  pains  to  unite  his  work  with  the 
original  poem.  His  undertaking  bore  no  stamp  of  dishonesty  in 
his  own  eyes  and  he  was  not  on  his  guard  against  the  methods  of 
modern  criticism.  Elihu's  author  was  not  an  interpolator,  in  the 
-real  sense  of  the  word;  full  of  the  urgency  of  his  message,  he  takes 
no  particular  thought  for  the  niceties  of  the  dramatic  situation. 
Kuenen  suggests  that  the  subscription  after  chap.  31  is  intended  to 
indicate  that  the  following  chapters  are  from  another  hand. 

Style. — 1.  A  notable  peculiarity  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  is  their 
marked  Aramaic  coloring.  Kautzsch  states  the  proportion  of 
Aramaisms  as  follows:  there  are  thirty-two  distinct  Aramaisms  in 
Job  and  eighty-four  occurrences;  in  chaps.  32-37,  which  constitute 
one-seventh  of  the  book,  there  are  thirteen  Aramaisms  with  thirty- 
one  occurrences.  The  explanation  that  Elihu  is  designedly  given  an 
Aramaic  vocabulary  is  decidedly  artificial  and  improbable.  Such 
characterization  is  not  in  the  manner  of  a  Hebrew  poet. 

2.  Elihu  has  certain  peculiarities  of  speech  which  set  him  apart 
from  the  other  speakers.  Kautzsch'  enumerates  eight  words  used 
nine  times,  which  are  used  only  by  Elihu.  Such  words  are  men- 
tioned in  the  notes  on  the  text.  There  are  in  addition  phrases  and 
usages  which  distinguish  these  chapters  from  the  others;  different 
words  are  used  to  express  familiar  conceptions;  the  poetical  suffixes, 
which  characterize  the  poem,  are  almost  never  employed.  Elihu 
announces  his  intention  to  speak  frequently,  and  calls  upon  Job  to 
give  heed.  "To  make  known  knowledge"  or  "wisdom"  are  favorite 
phrases  on  his  lips.  Only  Elihu  speaks  of  God  as  "opening  the  ear 
of  man,"  and  numerous  other  expressions  are  his  alone. 

3.  Elihu  alone  addresses  Job  by  name  though  plural  and  singular 
forms  would  have  sufficed  to  distinguish  those  addressed. 

4.  The  accurate  quotation  of  Job's  words  or  those  of  the  friends  ^ 
is  without  parallel  in  the  dialogue.     Although  Elihu  is   refuting 
Job's  accusations,  the  hearers  who  had  been  present  at  the  debate 
might  have  been  expected  to  understand  the  allusions  without  a 


20  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

literal  rehearsal  of  the  remarks.  The  manner  is  rather  that  of  a 
later  reader  and  critic  than  of  the  poet  in  the  heat  of  composition. 

5.  The  poetry  of  these  chapters  is  almost  uniformly  inferior  to 
the  rest  of  the  poem.  Not  only  prosaic  phrasing  and  frequent  lack 
of  rhythm  justify  this  verdict,  but  a  marked  lack  of  the  splendid 
imaginativeness  of  the  poem  itself.  Figures  are  less  frequent  and 
less  vivid  and  the  diction  is  less  fresh  and  suggestive.  There  is  a 
reiteration  and  monotony  of  style  strangely  in  contrast  to  the  earlier 
chapters,  though  all  are  cast  in  the  same  poetic  mold.  The  differ- 
ence is  very  apparent  with  a  form  of  verse  which  only  too  readily 
degenerates  into  mere  singsong.  No  one  who  has  attempted  to 
translate  the  chapters  and  retain  the  Hebrew  form  can  fail  to  have 
felt  their  essentially  unpoetic  quaUty.  They  are  the  work  of  an 
author  whose  lesson  was  of  first  importance,  whose  verse  was  only 
a  conventional  form  in  which  to  offer  it. 

In  view  of  this  uniform  inferiority,  the  suggestion  that  the  speeches 
represent  unfinished  material  of  the  poet  fails  to  be  convincing. 

Content. — Judgment  as  to  whether  the  poet  has  given  an  answer 
to  the  problem  he  has  so  relentlessly  exposed  will  necessarily  be 
subjective,  therefore  divided.  The  poem  is  not  a  mere  philosophic 
debate;  it  is  a  record  of  human  experience;  and  the  conclusions 
of  the  two  are  to  be  differently  estimated. 

There  is  some  justification  for  those  who  find  no  satisfying  solu- 
tion in  the  poem  if  Elihu  is  excluded  from  it.  The  arguments  of 
the  friends  have  only  that  measure  of  truth  which  the  traditional 
and  obvious  belief  must  always  contain.  In  spite  of  Friedrich 
Delitzsch's  characterization  of  the  poem  as  "Das  Hohelied  des 
Pessimismus,"  we  cannot  believe  that  Job's  passionate  challenge 
of  the  universe  is  its  own  excuse  for  being.  There  is  something 
beyond,  something  toward  which  Job  is  fighting  his  way. 

And  then,  say  the  advocates  of  the  Elihu  Speeches,  Yahweh 
speaks  to  Job  from  the  whirlwind  not  to  make  clear  his  hidden 
purpose,  but  to  overwhelm  Job  by  a  swift  panorama  of  his  great 
and  unknowable  universe;  to  flash  scorn  upon  him  that  he  has 
dared  to  measure  himself  with  the  All-powerful  and  All-wise;  to 
bring  his  helpless  creature  into  abject  submission.     Is  this  an  answer 

'  Die  Aramaismen  im  Alien  Testament,  1  Theil  (1902). 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  21 

worthy  of  the  poet?  There  is  no  solving  of  the  mystery;  if  this 
is  the  poet's  last  word,  it  is  a  mere  passive  fatalistic  relinquishing 
of  the  struggle. 

But  Job  had  come  face  to  face  with  the  Infinite,  had  seen  life 
and  the  universe  for  a  moment  in  the  light  of  the  Eternal. 

I  had  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear; 
But  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee, 
Wherefore  I  abhor  myself,  and  repent 
In  dust  and  ashes. 

Without  either  an  explanation  or  his  justification,  he  was  satisfied. 
Not  an  answer,  only  a  vision,  was  the  end  of  the  poet's  search.  And 
the  vision,  perhaps,  is  not  wholly  satisfying — yet  magnificent,  worthy 
of  a  great  poet  and  the  heroic  spirit  who  had  lived  out  his  life  drama 
in  such  torture  of  soul.  For  solution  he  found,  at  last,  only  the 
simple  religious  one  of  trust  in  a  love  and  wisdom  that  are  beyond 
man's  knowing. 

Are  we  to  demand  that  he  should  have  given  something  more 
positive  and  definite,  should  have  closed  the  argument  with  words 
of  wisdom  on  the  meaning  of  suffering?  The  assumption  that  he 
must  have  done  so  in  order  to  justify  the  writing  of  the  poem  seems 
unwarrantable  and  pedantic.  If  we  must  needs  have  an  explana- 
tion, it  will  have  to  be  sought  with  Elihu. 

Here  also,  opinions,  vary  regarding  the  freshness  and  value  of 
Elihu's  contribution.  His  message,  which  must  be  regarded  pri- 
marily as  that  of  the  chastening  educative  purpose  of  suffering,  is 
not  by  him  first  suggested.  Eliphaz  has  undoubtedly  expressed 
its  essence  in  5:17  and  the  following  verses.  Yet  it  cannot  there 
represent  the  poet's  final  answer  to  the  wherefore  of  suffering  and 
sorrow,  nor  is  the  idea  elsewhere  in  the  dialogue  resumed";  By  Elihu, 
however,  it  is  proclaimed  with  the  consciousness  of  fresh  wisdom 
and  the  stamp  of  finality.  He  has  taken  a  phase  of  the  truth,  as  the 
poet  saw  it,  and  offered  it  as  a  complete  explanation  for  the  problem. 
In  so  far  Elihu  brings  the  only  positive  solution  which  the  poem 
affords.? 

But  the  question  is  not  whether  the  chapters  furnish  a  positive 
answer,  a  valuable  and  true  thought  on  the  great  problem — one, 
perhaps,  religiously  higher  than  anything  in  the  poem  itself — but 


22  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

whether  it  is  the  poet's  solution.  Would  he  have  chosen  to  touch 
upon  this  thought,  put  it  aside  with  the  other  inadequate  words  of 
the  friends,  and  then  introduce  it  at  the  close  of  the  debate  as  an  all- 
sufficient  explanation  ?  Would  he  have  introduced  another  speaker 
of  superior  wisdom  to  develop  and  reiterate  the  idea  at  such  length  ? 

And  yet  another  question  must  be  raised.  Chap.  37  anticipates 
the  manner  and  the  conception  of  the  Yahweh  Speeches.  They 
do  not  in  reality  make  the  grandeur  of  the  divine  revelation  super- 
fluous, but  they  detract  from  its  unique  glory.  The  theory  that 
they  prepare  for  the  Theophany  by  a  description  of  the  gathering 
storm  is  quite  improbable.  Apart  from  the  question  of  the  unity 
of  the  description,  its  failure  to  justify  such  a  hypothesis  has  often 
been  pointed  out.  The  thunderstorm  is  followed  by  snow,  a  sum- 
mer heaven,  and,  at  the  very  moment  before  Yahweh  appears  in 
the  whirlwind,  by  the  clear  windswept  skies.  This  marring  of  his 
masterful  conclusion  is  hardly  to  be  ascribed  to  the  poet.  And  there 
is  more  than  a  suggestion  in  33:13 — 37:23  f.  that  a  direct  answer 
of  Yahweh  to  Job  is  neither  necessary  nor  fitting. 

The  content  of  the  speeches,  then,  whatever  its  value,  does  not 
tend  to  contradict  the  evidence  of  style  and  connection  against  a 
common  authorship  for  the  Elihu  Speeches  and  Job.  It  is  indeed, 
as  has  often  been  said,  the  cumulative  force  of  the  various  arguments 
which  brings  conviction — that,  and  an  open-minded  reading  of  the 
whole  section. 

DATE    OF   JOB 

The  chief  critical  problems  which  the  Elihu  Speeches  offer  hav- 
ing been  considered,  it  is  in  order  to  question  the  probable  date  of 
the  original  poem  and  that  of  its  chief  supplement  in  relation  to  it. 
Without  attempting  to  follow  in  detail  a  criticism  which  has  steadily 
brought  forward  the  date  of  Job,  its  progress  may  be  suggested  by 
a  general  statement. 

The  Talmudists  and  Michaelis  among  early  critics  believed  it 
came  from  the  hand  of  the  great  Lawgiver.  This  was  probably  the 
opinion  of  the  makers  of  the  Syriac  Canon,  for  the  book  finds  a 
place  in  the  Peshitta  between  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua.  Bishop 
Lowth,  Stuhlmann,  and  Eichhorn  considered  it  pre-Mosaic. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  23 

Its  Wisdom  character  was  sufficient  to  convince  Luther,  Haever- 
nick,  Hahn,  Dehtzsch,  and  others  that  it  must  belong  to  the  age  of 
Solomon.  A  date  about  770  b.c.  was  suggested  by  Renan.  A 
large  number  of  scholars  have  dated  the  poem  after  the  fall  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom  in  the  course  of  the  seventh  century;  among 
them  are :  Ewald,  Merx,  Reuss,  Stickel,  De  Wette,  Schrader,  Hirzel, 
Hitzig.  Koenig  places  it  at  the  very  end  of  this  century;  Ley  and 
Wright  in  the  early  years  of  the  sixth. 

For  a  composition  in  the  period  of  the  Exile  declare  themselves 
Umbreit,  Dillmann,  Davidson,  Bickell,  and  Driver.  The  Persian 
period  is  favored  by  Vatke,  Studer,  Hoffmann,  Margoliouth,  Cheyne, 
Duhm.  Kuenen  and  Budde  consider  a  date  not  far  from  400  b.c. 
one  most  in  accord  with  the  character  of  the  book,  while  Holtzmann 
and  Wildeboer  bring  it  down  to  the  Greek  period.  Cornill  declares 
the  book  one  of  the  latest  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  Siegfried  would 
assign  it  apparently  to  the  Maccabean  period. 

A  date  before  Jeremiah  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  consider.  The 
famous  passages  Job  3:3  f.,  10:18  expressing  Job's  curse  upon  his 
birth  in  words  so  like  Jeremiah's  (20:14-18)  must  be  adjudged,  as 
Cornill  has  pronounced,  an  artistic  reshaping  of  the  spontaneous 
cry  of  the  prophet.  The  mention  of  Job  with,  the  patriarchs  Noah  and 
Daniel  in  Ezek.  14:14,  20  certainly  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the 
legend  of  "patient  Job"  rather  than  the  poet's  impatient  hero. 
Ezek.,  chap.  18,  which  denies  the  existence  of  its  problem,  would 
scarcely  have  been  written  after  the  poem. 

It  need  only  be  remembered  that  the  poem  is  essentially  a  prod- 
uct of  the  Wisdom  Literature,  to  suggest  an  exihc,  if  not  post- 
exilic,  date.  This  form  of  literary  expression  grew  out  of  a  time 
when  the  irrevocable  overthrow  of  the  nation  had  perforce  shifted 
the  emphasis  to  the  individual.  Purely  religious  sentiments  in  this 
time  found  expression  in  psalms;  moral  and  philosophical  reflec- 
tions in  the  Wisdom  poetry. 

Job  stands  in  close  relation  to  both  these  forms  of  literature. 
The  cry  of  despair  in  Ps.  88  is  very  like  Job's  complaints,  and  Pss. 
38,  39  are  pleas  of  more  submissive  sufferers.  Special  verses  in  many 
psalms  are  so  strikingly  similar  that  the  two  can  hardly  be  indepen- 
dent.    Compare  for  instance   Ps.  8:5  and  Job  7:17;    Ps.  103:16 


24  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

and  Job  7:106;  Ps.  107:40-42  and  Job  12:21,  24.  In  the  first  of 
these  instances  Job  is  almost  certainly  parodjdng  the  Psalmist's 
question,  but  to  attempt  to  establish  the  priority  in  the  numerous 
related  passages  would  be  comparatively  useless,  since  the  dating 
of  the  Psahns  is  so  uncertain.  Ps.  49  shows  a  special  resemblance 
to  the  form  of  Wisdom  Hterature,  and  Ps.  37  touches  upon  the  Job 
problem. 

Before  discussing  the  relation  of  the  poem  to  the  other  books  of 
this  character,  the  kinship  between  it  and  Deutero-Isaiah  should 
be  considered.  Were  there  not  remarkable  likeness  in  forms  of 
expression,  the  problem  which  absorbs  the  two  authors  would  indi- 
cate that  they  were  not  separated  by  long  periods  of  years.  Only 
after  the  Exile  did  the  problem  of  undeserved  suffering  become  a 
burning  one.  The  most  natural  inference  from  the  form  which  the 
problem  assumes  is  that  Deutero-Isaiah's  presentation  is  the  earlier, 
for  in  Hebrew  thought  the  individualistic  development  always  fol- 
lowed the  national.  This  probabiUty  is  strengthened  by  the  con- 
ditions which  the  two  books  represent.  In  Deutero-Isaiah  the 
Captivity  is  the  great  and  terrible  reahty;  release  from  it  the  great 
hope.  The  background  of  Job  is  not  overwhelming  national  disaster 
and  despair,  but  a  time  of  comparatively  peaceful  and  settled  con- 
ditions. There  is  oppression,  but  it  is  of  the  poor  and  weak  by  the 
rich  and  strong.  Only  echoes  of  the  national  calamity  are  heard 
(Job  12:17  f.). 

The  unity  and  world  government  of  Yahweh,  which  Deutero- 
Isaiah  maintains,  stand  in  Job  beyond  question.  Absolute  and 
universal  monotheism  is  the  postulate  of  the  poem.  True,  the  poem 
in  its  wider  aspect  found  an  answer  which  the  author  of  Job  does 
not  even  suggest.  ChejTie  for  this  reason  believes  that  the  Servant 
Passages  are  a  later  addition  to  the  Deutero-Isaiah — a  kind  of  com- 
mentary on  Job  (cf.  Isa.,  chap.  53).  But  it  may  well  be  that  the 
troubled  poet  found  no  significance  for  the  personal  problem  in  the 
solution  of  vicarious  suffering.  Passages  hke  those  in  Job  14:2  and 
Isa.  40:7;  Job  9:8  and  Isa.  44:24;  Job  15:35  and  Isa.  59:4;  Job 
13:28  and  Isa.  50:9,  51:8;  Job  26:12  and  Isa.  51:9;  Job  30:21 
and  Isa.  63:10,  resemble  each  other  so  closely  that  one  WTiter  must 
be  dependent  on  the  other.     The  glorification  of  God  in  nature 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  25 

which  reaches  its  height  in  the  Yahweh  Speeches  of  Job  is  a  marked 
characteristic  of  the  prophet  of  the  Exile.  Comparison  tends  to 
show  that  the  author  of  Job  wrote  after  the  time  of  Deutero-Isaiah. 

The  presentation  of  the  same  problem  of  undeserved  suffering  in 
Malachi  strengthens  this  conclusion.  The  complaint  of  the  people, 
as  expressed  by  the  later  prophet  (Mai.  1:2;  2:17;  3:13-15)  is 
more  akin  to  Job's  cry  than  anything  in  Deutero-Isaiah.  Kuenen 
and  Budde  have  laid  particular  stress  on  this  relationship.  "It 
availeth  not  a  man  to  serve  God;  the  wicked  prosper  as  the  just." 
But  it  is  to  be  noted  in  Malachi  that  the  complaint  is  the  general 
pessimistic  declaration  of  the  unthinking.  When  Job,  on  the  other 
hand,  voiced  his  protest,  it  came  as  a  shock  to  the  prevailing  belief 
of  his  time,  expressed  in  the  attitude  of  the  friends.  Much  of  the 
significance  of  that  protest  against  the  old  doctrine  of  retribution 
is  lost,  if  we  are  to  suppose  the  thought  already  a  commonplace 
of  the  time.  It  is  at  all  events  clear  that  the  two  books  must  have 
arisen  under  similar  conditions,  but  to  the  poet  should  probably  be 
credited  the  first  sharp  formulating  of  the  question. 

Alleged  traces  of  the  completed  Hexateuch  in  Job  are  naturally 
only  incidental  and  not  sufficient  to  be  regarded  as  conclusive 
evidence  for  date.  Such  are  found  in  Job  21:12;  30:31;  Gen.  4:21; 
31:27;  Job  42:11;  Gen.  33:19.  The  P  phrase  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  book  is,  however,  quite  unmistakable,  and  if  the  Epilogue  in 
this  form  represents  the  original  conclusion  of  the  poem,  a  date  after 
444  B.C.  would  be  practically  certain. 

As  the  supreme  product  of  the  Wisdom  literature,  Job  should  be 
studied  especially  in  relation  to  the  other  books  of  this  character. 
Its  relationship  with  Proverbs,  chaps.  1-9 — by  general  consent  the 
latest  section  of  the  book — is  of  the  greatest  importance.  The 
judgment  of  scholars  has,  however,  been  divided  on  this  question. 
Seyring^  and  Strack,^  who  have  given  it  special  treatment,  believe 
Job  the  earlier,  but  Merx,  Davidson,  Kuenen,  Budde,  Cornill,  and 
others  have  affirmed  the  opposite  opinion. 

The  closest  resemblance  is  found  between  Prov.  3:14;  8:11,  19, 
and  Job  28:15-19.     This  is  of  little  significance  for  the  date  of  Job 

1  Die  Abhdngigkeit  der  Spriiche  Salomonis  Kap.  i—ix.  von  Hiob  (1889). 

2  St.  Kr.  (1896),  S.  609  f. 


26  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

because  the  entire  twenty-eighth  chapter  is  very  generally  admitted 
to  be  later  than  the  poem  and  these  particular  verses  are  probably 
a  still  later  addition.  Other  passages  undoubtedly  related  are  Job 
5:17,  18;  Prov.  3:11,  12;  Job  15:7;  38:6;  Prov.  8:25;  Job  26:10; 
Prov.  8:276;  Job  38:10,  11;  Prov.  8:29.  A  remarkable  fact  is 
that  the  passages  mentioned  in  Proverbs  are  grouped  in  the  third 
and  eighth  chapters. 

We  find  a  very  convincing  reason  for  considering  the  author  of 
Prov.  chaps.  1-9  the  borrower  in  the  fact  that  the  conception  of 
Wisdom  is  there  far  more  developed  and  stereotjrped  than  in  Job. 
It  is  closer  to  that  in  Ben  Sira  (chaps.  1 ,  24) .  Toy^  in  his  commentary 
on  Proverbs  by  a  comparison  of  technical,  ethical  terms  in  Job, 
Proverbs,  and  Ecclesiastes  reaches  the  conclusion  that,  "Job  is 
nearer  Proverbs  in  the  diction  which  the  latter  shares  with  the 
Psalter.  We  may  thence  probably  infer  that  the  philosophical 
conception  of  Wisdom  is  less  developed  in  Job  than  in  Proverbs,  and 
that  the  former  book  is  earlier  than  the  latter." 

Borrowing  by  the  poet  of  Job  has  been  assumed  as  certain  in 
15:7  (cf.  Prov.  8:25),  but  this  conclusion  may  be  doubted.  There 
is  no  obvious  allusion  to  personified  Wisdom  in  Eliphaz'  scornful 
question,  which  might  well  have  been  suggested  by  expressions 
in  Deutero-Isaiah  (cf.  40:21,  22;  44:24;  45:18,  21)  proclaiming 
the  wisdom  of  the  Lord  from  the  beginning  in  the  creation  of  the 
world.  Eliphaz'  question  might  thus  refer  to  a  wisdom  arising 
from  age-long  existence  and  the  answer  in  w.  9,  10  scoff  at  Job's 
pretensions  in  the  face  of  older  men  than  himself.  A  later  writer 
in  Proverbs  may  have  employed  the  phrase,  with  others  from  the 
Yahweh  Speeches,  for  his  praise  of  eternal  Wisdom.  The  entire 
description  Prov.  8:22-31  seems  to  presuppose  the  Yahweh  Speeches 
rather  than  serve  as  an  inspiration  for  them.  Kuenen  has  suggested 
that  the  two  authors  may  have  been  contemporaries. 

The  earlier  sections  of  Proverbs  were  very  probably  kno^\^l 
and  used  by  Job's  author.  Compare  Prov.  13:9;  24:20  with  Job 
18:5,6;  21:17;  Prov.  15:11  with  Job  26:6;  Prov.  16:15  with  Job 
29:23,24. 

For  the  establishment  of  date  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  consider 

'  "Proverbs,"  International  Critical  Commentary  (1899),  24  f. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  27 

the  relation  of  Job  with  Ecclesiastes  or  Ben  Sira.  The  diction  of 
both  these  later  books  exhibits  new  verbal  forms,  late  syntactical 
usages,  neo-Hebraisms,  Aramaisms,  etc.,  which  indicate  a  far  more 
decadent  stage  of  the  language  than  that  of  Job.' 

There  is  only  one  definite  reference  to  Job  in  Ecclesiastes  (Eccles. 
5:14;  Job  1:21).  Sira  quotes  the  poem  frequently,  though  freely, 
as  though  the  book  had  belonged  to  his  Canon  and  been  studied. 
Compare  Sir.  4:10  with  Job  31:16,  18;  Sir.  14:17,  19  with  Job 
13:28;  Sir.  43:27,  32  with  Job  26:14  and  the  description  of  the 
phenomena  of  nature  in  Sir.  43:13  f.  with  various  portions  of  the 
Yahweh  Speeches.  Special  use  seems  to  have  been  made  of  Job, 
chap.  28  (cf.  Sira,  chap.  1).  Moreover,  Job  is  mentioned  in  the  list 
of  famous  men  (Sir.  49:9,  Heb.  text)  where  we  should  perhaps  read 
an  emended  text,  "He  also  mentioned  Job  the  upright  who  uttered 
right  words."     (Cf.  art.  "Job,"  Enc.  Bib.) 

If,  as  seems  very  probable,  Job  has  been  quoted  by  the  author 
of  Prov.,  chaps.  1-9,  and  Ben  Sira,  Cornill's  contention  that  the  poem 
exercised  no  influence  on  Hebrew  literature  would  be  unfounded. 
Cheyne"  believed  Ps.  88  imitative  of  Job  and  also  other  passages  in 
later  psalms  (p.  84). 

A  literary-historical  investigation  thus  suggests  a  date  not  earlier 
than  the  last  third  of  the  fifth  century.  Linguistic  evidence  would 
forbid  placing  the  poem  at  a  much  later  date.  To  postulate  Greek^ 
or  Egyptian^  influence  because  of  the  dialogue  form  of  the  poem 
seems  quite  unnecessary.  Job  stands  alone  in  many  respects  in 
Hebrew  literature;  the  form  is  not  an  artificial  one  and  is  peculiarly 
adapted  to  the  author's  purpose.  The  conceptions  of  the  poem 
are  essentially  Hebraic,  though  freed  from  nationalistic  bias. 

Certain  special  conceptions  of  the  poem,  which  have  a  bearing 
upon  the  question  of  date,  should  be  mentioned.  The  Satan  of  the 
Prologue  is  unknown  in  pre-exilic  literature  and  may  possibly  bear 
a  relation  to  the  Persian  Ahriman.  Satan  in  Zech.,  chap.  3,  appears 
as  the  adversary  of  the  righteous  in  the  heavenly  council;    in  the 

1  Cf.  Levi,  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  (1904),  p.  12,  and  the  glossary 
of  noa-biblical  words  at  the  end;  Barton,  "Ecclesiastes"  {Inter.  Critical  Commentary; 
1908),  pp.  52  f. 

2  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  88. 

2  Cf .  Friedlander,  Griechische  Philosophie  im  Alten  Testament  (1904),  S.  90  f. 

^  Cf.  Gunkel,  Zum  religionsgeschichtlichen   Verstdndnis  des  Neuen  Testaments,  S.  27. 


28  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Prologue  of  Job  he  is  still  a  servant  of  Yahweh,  though  of  evil  intent. 
The  latter  conception  seems  the  earlier  form,  but  since  the  Prologue 
and  Epilogue  are  probably  not  the  poet's  own  creation,  the  evidence 
for  date  is  not  of  so  much  significance.  A  later  stage  of  develop- 
ment is  clearly  indicated  in  Chronicles,  where  the  name  of  Satan  is 
mentioned  without  the  article.  The  council  of  the  Bene  Elohim  in 
the  Prologue  and  several  references  to  angelic  beings  in  the  poem 
(4:18;  5:1;  15:15;  38:7)  indicate  post-exihc  thought.  In  later 
thinking  the  distance  between  God  and  men  was  ever  widening, 
and  there  was  a  tendency  to  create  hosts  of  subordinate  heavenly 
beings  as  intermediaries.  In  Daniel  the  angels  have  become  organ- 
ized into  hierarchies  and  have  been  assigned  special  functions. 
No  such  developed  conception  is  suggested  in  Job. 

The  ethical  standard  of  the  time,  expressed  in  Job's  sohloquy 
(chaps.  29-31),  is  high.  The  Deuteronomic  law  is  certainly  presup- 
posed as  the  code  of  society  and  in  a  few  instances  definitelj^  indi- 
cated (Deut.  19:14;  Job  24:2;  Deut.  17:2  f.;  4:19;  Job  31:26-28). 

The  various  lines  of  evidence — literary  and  linguistic,  and  that 
of  social  and  religious  conditions — agree  best  with  a  date  not  far  from 
400  B.C.,  which  Kuenen  and  Budde  have  advocated. 

THE   COMPOSITION    OF   THE   ELIHU    SPEECHES 

Discussion  has  continued  so  long  and  so  determinedly  concerning 
the  relationship  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  to  the  original  poem,  that  com- 
paratively little  attention  has  been  given  to  the  literary  and  textual 
problems  which  these  speeches  offer.  Hoffmann  and  Budde  have 
recognized  32 : 2-5  as  a  secondary  addition  to  the  text,  while  Bickell 
and  Hatch'  have  omitted  numerous  passages  in  accordance  with 
the  evidence  of  Origen's  Hexapla  and  the  Sahidic  version.  Siegfried, 
Budde,  Duhm,  and  others  have  excluded  on  various  grounds  a  num- 
ber of  verses  as  glosses. 

In  the  insistence,  however,  upon  the  fact  that  these  speeches  are 
a  later  and  inferior  supplement  to  the  poem,  much  lack  of  unity 
and  many  surprising  inconsistencies  have  been  laid  to  the  charge  of 
Elihu's  verbose  and  awkward  style.  That  the  poetic  diction  and 
style  of  these  chapters  are  far  inferior  to  those  of  the  original  poet 

•  oj  ,  ^  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek  (1889),  pp.  215  f. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  29 

has  already  been  recognized.     This  contrast  remains  even  though  a     ' 
careful  analysis  of  the  chapters  suggests  the  possibility  of  more  than 
one  author  as  an  explanation  for  some  faults  of  construction,  jjncj; 
curious  inconsistencies. 

For  the  sake  of  greater  clearness  in  the  following  discussion  it 
seems  best  to  state  at  once  the  main  outlines  of  the  suggested 
analysis. 

1.  Chap.  34  (with  the  exception  of  vv.  28-33)  is  regarded  as  the 
work  of  an  author  different  from  the  writer  of  the  remaining  chapters 
— not  a  supplementer  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  but  a  second  commen- 
tator on  the  Job  poem. 

2.  The  passage  32:11-16  is  assumed  as  the  probable  introduc- 
tion to  chap.  34;  35:15,  16  are  included  with  chap.  34. 

3.  The  passage  32:2-5  of  the  prose  introduction  is  treated  as  the 
addition  of  an  editor  who  combined  32:11-16  and  chap.  34  with  the 
original  Elihu  Speeches. 

4.  The  sections  34:28-33;  36:76-9,  106-13,  16,  17  and  36:26, 
276,  28a,  29-32;  37: 2-5a,  66,  11-126,  13,  which  are  shown  by  Origen's 
Hexapla  and  the  Sahidic  version  to  have  been  lacking  in  the  primi- 
tive LXX  text,  are  regarded  as  later  interpolations.  They  are  not 
taken  into  consideration  in  the  general  discussion  of  the  chapters 
but  reserved  for  special  treatment.  In  the  following  discussion  the 
reasons  for  the  above  analysis  are  set  forth.  For  special  questions 
of  the  text  the  notes  on  the  text  must  be  compared. 

There  is  at  least  no  intrinsic  improbability  in  the  hypothesis  of 
a  double  authorship  for  the  Elihu  Speeches.  If  these  speeches 
represent,  as  Cheyne  has  so  aptly  suggested,  "the  first  theological 
criticism"  on  Job  they  might  include  the  attempt  of  not  one  but 
two  or  more  zealous  pietists  to  correct  the  errors  of  Job  and  set  the 
book  in  a  proper  religious  light.  No  staunch  defender  of  orthodoxy 
would  have  been  unaware  of  the  dangerous  heresy  of  Job's  protest; 
more  than  one  might  have  been  impelled  to  issue  a  supplementary 
tract  or  reply  which  would  counteract  its  harmful  tendencies  and 
make  the  poem  acceptable  to  the  eyes  of  orthodoxy.  Such  criticisms 
might  be  immediately  attached  to  the  poem  or  might  circulate  for 
a  time  separately  and  be  combined  later  by  another  hand  with  the 
original  poem. 


30  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 


/ 


The  tendency  to  reform  and  improve  Job,  shown  by  insertions 
and  transpositions  in  the  body  of  the  poem,  has  been  recognized  in 
different  degrees  by  most  modern  critics  of  the  book.  The  theories 
of  Hoffmann,  Grill,  and  Laue  may  be  mentioned  in  this  connection; 
Duhm,  Siegfried,  and  other  commentators  have  a  considerable  list 
of  interpolations.  '  It  is  generally  admitted  that  some  tranposition 
and  rearrangement  of  the  text  must  explain  the  failure  of  the  sym- 
metrical scheme  of  the  poem  after  chap.  24  and  the  remarkable 
development  of  the  thought. 

Admitting  the  fact  of  such  transpositions  and  corrective  addi- 
tions, the  natural  place  for  any  considerable  supplement  or  sustained 
attempt  at  criticism  would  be  at  the  point  where  the  original  dialogue 
ceased.  The  somewhat  rigid  scheme  of  dialogue  could  here  be 
disregarded  and,  by  the  simple  device  of  the  introduction  of  another 
speaker,  opportunity  would  thus  be  afforded  for  free  comment  on 
the  poem.  That  the  Ehhu  Speeches  represent  such  a  supplement 
has  been  generally  admitted,  but  the  possibility  of  more  than  one 
critic  has  not,  to  the  writer's  knowledge,  been  suggested. 
/  In  1875  Studer'  advanced  the  theory  that  the  entire  poem  repre- 
sented the  efforts  of  a  School  of  Wise  Men  toward  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  suffering;  that  its  present  form  was  due  to  an  editorial 
hand  which  had  gathered  together  the  various  contributions.  He 
icited  in  support  of  his  theory  15:2,  18;  34:2,  34.  The  latter  verses 
undoubtedly  suggest  a  Wise  Men's  debate,  and  this  suggestion  will 
be  considered  later. 

This  composition  theory,  which  Cheyne  has  also  supported  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  is  impossible  as  an  explanation  for  the  original 
poem — the  impassioned  utterance  of  a  great  poet  and  a  giant  spirit. 
Moreover,  the  unified  and  symmetrical  structure  of  the  dialogue 
could  hardly  have  resulted  from  such  a  process.  The  explanation 
is  far  too  mechanical  for  the  poem  itself;  but  that  a  school  of  Wise 
Men  and  orthodox  teachers  later  laid  hands  on  the  poem  to  correct 
and  supplement  it,  seems  more  than  probable.  Kuenen's  sugges- 
tion is  entirely  credible — that  the  book  might  never  have  found  a 
place  in  the  Canon  -without  the  reshaping  of  a  hand  guided  by  a 
more  orthodox  piety.     Chaps.  32-37  of  Job,  which  we  know  under 

1  Jahrbucher  fur  protestantische  Theologie,  IV,  S.  688-723. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  31 

the  name  of  the  Elihu  Speeches,  apparently  represent  the  criticisms 
of  two  such  would-be  champions  of  orthodoxy.  And  as  theological 
critics  admittedly  seldom  agree,  so  these  two  have  pondered  the 
problem  of  Job's  trials  from  rather  different  points  of  view. 

The  Wise  Man  who  composed  the  supplement  to  Job  comprised 
in  chaps.  32,  33,  35-37  believed  himself  in  possession  of  a  solution 
of  the  problem  of  suffering  more  satisfying  than  any  which  the 
author  of  Job  had  found — a  solution  which  it  was  his  divine  mission 
to  enunciate.  So  convinced  is  he  of  the  inspired  nature  of  his  mes- 
sage, that  in  true  Hebrew  fashion  he  identifies  his  thought  with  that 
of  God  (32:8;  36:4)  and  considers  himself  a  champion  of  the  divine 
righteousness  (36:2,  3).  It  is  his  to  "assert  Eternal  Providence,  and 
justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men."  He  will  show  that  God  does 
answer  men's  cries  for  light  though  Job  has  bitterly  maintained  his 
indifference.  His  very  suffering,  if  Job  did  but  know  it,  is  God's 
message  to  him;  its  interpretation  is  to  be  sought  through  the  medium 
of  dreams  and  visions,  or  of  an  interpreter,  who  shall  declare  the 
meaning  of  his  affliction  and,  bringing  him  to  a  humble  spirit,  procure 
his  redemption  (33:14-24). 

This,  then,  is  Elihu's  God-given  illumination.  Suffering  is  to 
be  regarded  not  as  the  visitation  of  God's  wrath  upon  sin — the  belief 
of  the  friends  and  the  essence  of  the  old  doctrine  of  retribution — 
but  as  a  chastening,  soul-purifying  process,  the  testing  of  God  to 
try  out  the  baser  elements  in  a  man.  The  idea  is  not  so  entirely 
new  or  so  remarkable  as  its  author  imagines.  Already  Eliphaz  in 
5:17  has  suggested  the  thought  of  a  loving  purpose  of  God  behind 
punishment. 

Behold,  happy  is  the  man  whom  God  correcteth: 
Therefore,  despise  not  thou  the  chastening  of  the  Almighty. 
For  He  maketh  sore  and  bindeth  up; 
He  woundeth,  and  His  hands  make  whole. 

But  the  poet  did  not  offer  it  as  a  solution  of  the  eternal  mystery 
of  suffering.  To  Elihu's  author  it  seemed  sufficient  both  for  the 
universal  problem  and  Job's  particular  case.  The  poet's  tremendous 
upheavals  of  spirit  and  wild  challenge  of  the  Infinite  were  utterly 
strange  to  him.  His  pious  faith  did  not  question  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  conventional;  the  problem  in  all  its  desperate  reality  he  had 


32  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

never  faced.     Out  of  theological  reflection,  not  profound  experience, 
is  born  his  answer  to  the  Job  problem. 

He,  scarcely  more  than  the  friends,  accepts  Job's  protest  of 
entire  innocence  but  he  is  willing  to  admit  that  Job's  reward  far 
outweighs  his  desert,  and  finds,  in  this  theory  of  the  educative  pur- 
pose of  suffering,  an  answer  to  the  enigma.  Inadequate  as  the  solu- 
tion is,  it  yet  springs  from  a  far  higher  ethical  and  religious 
conception  of  God  than  that  of  the  friends  and  represents  the  only 
possible  categorical  answer  to  the  problem  before  which  the  poet 
leaves  Job  and  his  reader  uncomprehending  but  satisfied.  Elihu's 
theme,  frequently  reiterated,  is  expressed  in  33:17,  30;  it  is  God's 
purpose — 

To  turn  a  man  from  his  way, 

To  cause  him  to  cease  from  his  pride. 


To  bring  back  his  soul  from  destruction, 
To  enlighten  with  the  light  of  life. 

(Of.  also  36:15,  18,  19,  21.) 

It  is  the  word  of  a  lower  range  of  spirit  and  a  narrower  piety  than 
that  of  the  author  of  the  original  poem,  but  it  is  the  expression  of  a 
sincere  faith  in  a  loving  God — not  to  be  lightly  valued  as  a  contribu- 
tion to  the  religious  problem. 

Elihu  believed  himself  to  be,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer,  the 
I  interpreter  through  whom  God  would  make  known  to  Job  the  mean- 
',  ing  of  his  pain.  This  interpretation  of  the  much-quoted  passage 
33:23  f.  is  entirely  in  accordance  with  Elihu's  attitude  as  an  ambas- 
sador, divinely  appointed  to  enlighten  Job's  darkness.  The  text 
problem  is  more  fully  discussed  in  the  notes  on  the  passage,  but  the 
context  and  meter  of  v.  23  make  it  very  probable  that  the  word  "angel" 
is  a  later  gloss.  The  significance  of  "the  interpreter"  was  not  under- 
stood and  the  allusion  was  supposed  to  be  to  an  angel.  In  v.  22  we 
should  read,  "to  death,"  rather  than  "to  the  deathbringers" ;  nothing 
else  in  the  passage  suggests  a  supernatural  agent.  The  word  trans- 
lated "interpreter"  is  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament  used  of  a 
supernatural  being,  but  represents  an  ambassador.  Such  a  concep- 
tion of  a  definite  intercessor  with  God  does  not  appear  in  any  other 
passage.     Elihu  is  here  arrogating  to  himself  the  office  of  the  Days- 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  33 

man  for  whom  Job  has  longed  (9:33).  He  will  lay  his  hand,  so  to 
speak,  on  both,  and  become  interpreter  between  God  and  man. 

This  conception  of  his  high  mission  would  explain,  and  in  part 
excuse,  Elihu's  attitude  toward  Job  and  the  poet — the  kindly  toler- 
ance of  superior  insight.  Half  apologetically  he  begins,  explain- 
ing his  previous  silence  on  the  ground  of  his  youth  and  his  present 
entrance  into  the  discussion  by  the  compelling  impetus  of  his  inspira- 
tion (32:18,  19,  20).  It  is  not  perhaps  too  fanciful  to  imagine  in  the 
plea  of  a  younger  speaker  a  slight  justification  of  the  writer's  addi- 
tion to  the  work  of  the  earlier  poet.  The  poet  has  failed  of  the  solu- 
tion which  he,  Elihu,  knows  himself  fitted  to  bring  to  the  demands 
of  the  perplexed  and  despairing  Job.  The  tone  of  his  remarks  to 
Job,  is,  therefore,  that  of  serious,  kindly  admonition,  not  of  severe 
condemnation.  He  assures  Job  (33:6,  7),  in  words  which  echo  the 
hero's  cries,  that  he  has  nothing  to  fear  from  him;  chides  him  for 
his  misunderstanding  of  God's  dealings  with  him  (33:8-13);  bids 
him  answer  if  he  find  reply,  ''for  I  would  justify  thee";  reveals  the 
meaning  of  his  suffering  (33:17  f.),  and  admonishes  him  not  to 
thwart  God's  benevolent  purpose  by  rebellion  and  haughtiness 
(36:18,  21).  "But  the  wise  in  their  own  sight  he  regardeth  not," 
are  his  last  words  of  counsel  to  Job. 

Ehhu  would  bring  Job  to  a  better  mind,  illumine  for  him  the 
mysterious  ways  of  Providence  and  find  the  ransom  of  his  soul  in  a 
humble  submission  to  the  chastening  hand  (33:24;  36:18).  It  was 
the  virtuous  aim  with  which  the  friends  began  their  exhortation  to 
Job,  but  they  early  let  their  suspicion  appear,  that  his  great  suffering 
must  be  the  reward  of  equally  great  sin;  stung  by  Job's  irony  they 
launch  at  last  into  violent  denunciation  of  him.  Elihu,  undisturbed 
by  reply,  and  serene  in  the  consciousness  of  his  God-given  wisdom, 
pursues  his  mild-mannered  homily  to  the  end. 

After  his  introductory  remarks  Elihu  turns  his  attention  exclu- 
sively to  Job,  and,  with  the  exception  of  a  casual  mention  in  35:4, 
the  friends  are  not  again  brought  into  the  discussion.  With  Job 
alone  Elihu  carries  on  his  argument,  often  addressing  the  hero  by 
name  and  calling  on  him  to  give  heed  (33:1,  5,  31  f.;  36:2;  37:14). 
In  the  manner  of  his  direct  address  to  Job,  Elihu  maintains  the  form 
of  the  dialogue,  though  Job  is  there  never  called  by  name. 


34  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Chap.  34- — If  the  foregoing  summary  suggests  with  any  degree 
of  correctness  the  prevailing  spirit  and  manner  of  Ehhu's  exhorta- 
tion to  Job,  chap.  34  stands  out  in  sharp  distinction  from  it.  Both 
in  style  and  thought  chap.  34  separates  itself  from  the  other  chapters; 
the  manner  of  its  introduction  at  once  arouses  suspicion.  In  33 :31- 
33  Elihu  has  just  concluded  an  exhortation  to  Job : 

If  thou  hast  words  give  me  answer; 
Speak  then,  for  I  would  justify  thee; 
Else  give  thou  ear  unto  me, 
Hold  thy  peace,  I  will  teach  thee  wisdom. 

It  is  singular  to  find  this  followed  in  34:2-4  by  an  abrupt  call  to  the 
Wise  Men — who  appear  only  in  this  section — to  enter  into  judgment 
with  the  speaker  on  Job's  case. 

Hear  now,  ye  Wise  Men,  my  words, 
Ye  of  knowledge,  give  ear  unto  me. 

Various  transpositions  of  this  verse  or  of  the  address  to  Job  in 
33 :  31-33  have  been  suggested,  but  they  do  not  obviate  the  difficulty. 
Upon  the  address  in  34:2-4  follows  a  long  arraignment  of  Job, 
directed  exclusively  to  the  Wise  Men;  in  which  Job  is  not  addressed, 
but  always  mentioned  in  the  third  person;  in  which  he  is,  moreover, 
mercilessly  condemned  as  a  blasphemer  and  "man  of  iniquity." 
The  speaker  forgets  entirely  the  situation  and  the  personal  attitude 
which  Elihu  maintains,  and  places  us — as  Meinhold  has  remarked, 
though  in  different  connection — in  the  atmosphere  of  a  Wise  Men's 
discussion  or  rabbinical  debate. 

It  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  Wise  Men  (34:2^,  34),  who  are 
to  listen  to  the  arraignment  of  Job  and  confirm  judgment  against 
him,  represent  merely  the  friends.  Their  wisdom  has  already 
(32:11-16)  been  set  aside.  They  may  possibly  be  tacitly  included, 
but  it  is  a  far  wider  audience  of  Wise  Men — possibly  understanding 
readers — whom  the  author  summons  to  his  hearing  of  the  case. 
The  presence  of  the  suffering  Job  and  his  friends  fades  into  the  past 
to  which  they  already,  for  this  author,  belonged.  Job  is  tried  and 
condemned  before  the  court  of  the  Wise  Men  with  no  opportunity 
for  defense;  the  entire  chapter  is  a  polemic  not  only  against  Job 
but  also  against  the  poet  of  his  sorrows. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches     -  35 

No  trace  of  the  solution  which  Elihu  has  attempted  to  bring  to 
Job's  aid  appears;  no  hint  of  any  new  answer  to  the  problem  or  the 
theory  of  chastening  which  is  Elihu's  raison  d'etre.  The  argument 
is  somewhat  as  follows.  Job  has  accused  God  of  injustice  (34:5,  6); 
this  is  blasphemous  and  he  thereby  reveals  himself  as  a  sinner 
(34:7,  8).  God's  punishments  are  always  the  just  recompense  of  a 
man's  deeds  (34:10,  11,  12);  he  is  alone  powerful — therefore  alone 
just;  and  he  recompenses  evil  deeds  without  regard  to  power  or 
station  (34:13-26).  Job's  punishment  is  great;  he  must,  then,  have 
greatly  sinned  and  his  mad  outcries  for  justice  but  heap  sin  upon  sin 
(34:37).  The  matter  will  be  so  viewed  by  every  true  Wise  Man  who 
recognizes  the  unimpeachable  justice  of  the  supreme  God  (34:34,  35). 

Here  is  the  old  recompense  theory,  against  which  Job's  author 
has  contended,  set  forth  in  all  its  baldness,  more  harshly  than  by 
the  friends.  It  suffices  to  explain  the  entire  government  of  the 
universe.  The  author  of  chap.  34  has  no  touch  of  sympathy  with  the 
soul  struggles  of  a  Job  under  the  apparent  injustice  of  Providence; 
he  will  bring  no  theory  with  which  to  meet  Job's  difficulty  but  expose 
with  finality  the  errors  of  the  hero  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  hear 
and  read  his  protest.  Verily  Job  and  his  author  "speak  without 
knowledge"  and  their  "words  are  without  understanding." 

The  author  of  chap.  34  viewed  neither  Job's  protest  nor  the 
divine  government  with  the  eyes  of  the  original  Elihu  writer.  The 
harshness  of  his  doctrine  of  recompense  compares  ill  with  the  real 
religious  depth  of  Elihu's  theory  and  his  sympathy  toward  Job. 
The  former's  is  a  God  of  power  and  justice,  the  latter 's  one  of  power 
and  love. 

One  further  argument  for  the  separation  of  chap.  34  from  the 
chapters  which  precede  and  follow  should  be  mentioned.  Whereas 
34:2  is  quite  out  of  place  after  33:33,  35:2  forms  an  admirable 
continuation  of  Elihu's  address  to  Job  in  33:33.  The  entire  thirty- 
fifth  chapter  carries  on  consistently  the  tone  and  manner  of  chap. 
33.  Canons  of  literary  criticism  both  formal  and  material  would 
thus  lead  us  to  distinguish  two  lines  of  thought  and  two  authors  in 
the  Ehhu  Speeches. 

32:11-16. — Though  chap.  34  might  form  an  independent  whole, 
there  is  needed  a  fuller  introduction,  which  is  to  be  found  in  32 :  11-16. 


36  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

That  section  destroys  the  continuity  of  chap.  32  and  falls  out  of  the 
manner  and  tone  of  Elihu's  introduction.  V.  11,  "Behold  I  waited 
for  your  words,"  appears  to  begin  a  second  explanation  of  the  situa- 
tion which  vv.  6-10  have  already  made  perfectly  clear.  The  obvious 
weak  duplication  of  v.  10  by  v.  17  suggests  very  decidedly  that  a 
section  has  been  inserted  after  v.  10,  and  v.  17  added  to  restore  the 
original  connection.  V.  18  continues  far  better  than  any  of  the 
intervening  verses  the  thread  of  vv.  8-10  and  the  present  sequence 
of  vv.  15-17  f.  is  extremely  awkward  if  not  impossible.  V.  16,  which 
is  usually  read  as  a  question,  has  no  interrogative  particle,  and, 
though  an  omitted  one  may  be  assumed,  the  natural  rendering  is 
declarative.  The  difficulties  of  the  section  have  been  recognized 
by  recent  critics  of  the  speeches  and  they  have  resorted  to  various 
schemes  of  transposition  to  relieve  the  situation.  (The  suggestions 
are  given  in  the  notes  on  the  text.) 

The  primitive  LXX  omitted  a  part  of  this  section — a  part  of  v.  11, 
vv.  12,  15,  16.  V.  17  was  paraphrased  by  the  line,  "Answering, 
Elihu  said,  'I  will  speak  again.'  "  It  is  possible  that  the  exemplar 
employed  by  the  LXX  translator  may  have  showed  some  indications 
of  insertion  here,  which  led  to  the  omission  of  a  few  verses,  but  it  is 
not  at  all  probable  that  the  translator  did  not  read  the  verses.  The 
combination  of  the  two  documents  by  an  editor  must  have  taken 
place  long  before  a  LXX  translation,  and  the  explanation  of  this 
omission  lies  probably  in  a  marked  tendency  of  the  LXX  to  avoid 
useless  repetition.  Vv.  11,  12,  15,  16,  when  one  has  already  read 
the  early  part  of  the  chapter,  cannot  be  said  to  add  anything  to  the 
statement  of  the  case.  This  is  recognized  by  every  intelligent 
reader,  and  hence  much  abuse  of  Elihu's  style. 

For  this  very  reason  the  verses  are  not  easily  explained  as  a  mere 
gloss.  We  agree  with  Dillmann's'  opinion  that  if  the  verses  had  not 
been  at  hand  they  would  not  have  been  added.  There  was  no  further 
need  for  explanation;  the  silence  of  the  friends  had  been  stated, 
Elihu's  entrance  justified,  and  his  apology  made.  A  gloss  should 
have  some  shadow  of  excuse  for  its  insertion. 

As  a  parallel  introduction,  transferred  here  from  its  place  at  the 
head  of  chap.  34  by  the  combiner  of  the  two  documents,  the  section 

1  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  Akademie  zu  Berlin  (1890),  Bd.  II,  S.  1345. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  37 

vv.  11-16  is  far  more  intelligible.  The  verses  correspond  to  the 
tone  of  chap.  34  in  indignation  that  Job  has  not  been  condemned 
(v.  12)  and  in  absence  of  any  respect  for  the  poet's  answer  (vv.  13,14). 
The  answer  of  this  speaker  is  to  be  far  more  trenchant.  No  word  is 
here  addressed  to  Job,  and  in  v.  12  he  is  mentioned  by  name  as  in 
34:5,  7,  35,  36.  In  vv.  15,  16  the  author  drops  altogether  the  thin 
disguise  of  the  dramatic  situation  which  he  has  assumed  and  speaks 
of  the  friends  also  in  the  third  person.  Their  wisdom  has  not 
availed  to  condemn  Job;  therefore. 

Hear  now,  ye  Wise  Men,  my  words, 
Ye  of  knowledge,  give  ear  unto  me. 

The  motives  expressed  in  the  two  introductions  are  those  which 
correspond  to  the  character  of  the  two  arguments.  That  of  Elihu 
is  impelled  by  consciousness  of  a  new  and  divine  inspiration,  that 
of  the  anti-Job  author  by  moral  indignation  against  the  friends  for 
failing  to  reprove  Job  summarily  and  completely. 

Only  two  other  verses  in  the  EHhu  chapters  should  be  placed  with 
32:11-16  and  chap.  34.  These  are  the  last  two  verses  of  chap. 
35,  which  have  caused  much  difficulty  in  their  present  position. 

1.  It  is  clear  that  they  do  not  properly  follow  after  35:14,  unless 
the  text  is  radically  emended,  whereas  36:2  forms  a  natural  con- 
tinuation of  the  suspended  sentence  in  35 :  14.^ 

35 :  14    Yea,  for  thou  sayest  thou  beholdest  Him  not. 

Thy  cause  is  before  Him,  thou  waitest  for  Him, — 

36 : 2      Suffer  me  a  little,  that  I  may  show  thee 
For  I  have  yet  words  for  God. 

2.  The  introductory  rir"1  ''and  now"  of  v.  15  should  evidently 
preface  a  summary  of  what  has  preceded.  To  read  the  verse  at  the 
end  of  chap.  35  followed  by  36:2  destroys  the  significance  of  the 
construction. 

3.  The  verses  bear  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  chap.  34; 
they  speak  of  Job  in  the  third  person,  and  utter  his  condemnation 
in  the  familiar  phrase  "without  knowledge." 

1  The  headings  of  the  chapters  may  be  disregarded  as  editorial  imitations  of  those 
in  the  preceding  dialogue.  Since  EUhu  is  not  answered,  it  is  obvious  that  the  formxila 
has  no  significance  and  it  often  interrupts  the  continuity  of  the  address. 


38  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

4.  The  primitive  LXX  omitted  these  verses.  The  verses  are 
hardly  a  dupHcation  of  what  has  been  said  and  it  seems  possible 
that  the  translator  did  not  read  them  in  this  place.  The  alternative 
of  arbitrary  omission  is,  however,  also  possible. 

The  natural  place  for  these  two  verses  is  before  34:34  and  after 
34:27,  omitting  the  later  insertion  of  vv.  28-33.  In  that  position 
they  bring  the  charge  against  Job  after  the  account  of  God's  visita- 
tions upon  the  wicked  in  34:20-27.  Vv.  34,  35  of  chap.  34  then 
introduce  the  appeal  to  the  verdict  of  the  Wise  Men,  parallel  to  that 
in  34:2-4;  v.  37  adds  the  appropriate  conclusion  to  the  drastic 
judgment  pronounced  on  Job.  The  verses  probably  owe  their  posi- 
tion at  the  end  of  chap.  35  to  accidental  displacement.  They  were 
probably  displaced  from  their  original  position  by  the  insertion  of 
34:28-33  and  a  later  hand  gave  them  their  present  place,  perhaps 
because  of  a  supposed  connection  with  35:13. 

Much  ingenuity  has  been  exercised  in  an  effort  to  relieve  the 
awkwardness  of  that  position.  Bickell  and  Hatch,  of  course,  omit 
the  verses,  while  Duhm  and  Beer  transpose  v.  16  after  v.  8  and  con- 
nect V.  15  with  36:2.  The  suggestion  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
attractive  or  convincing.  A  much  more  satisfactory  solution  is 
afforded  by  the  analysis  suggested  above,  which  connects  the  verses 
with  chap.  34. 

The  argument  of  the  second  Wise  Man  would  thus  include 
32:11-16;  34:1-27;  35:15,  16;  34:33-37.  No  very  elaborate 
process  of  combination  and  transposition  is  necessary  to  account 
for  the  addition  of  such  a  document  to  the  other  Elihu  sec- 
tions. The  activity  of  the  editor  or  combiner  seems  to  have  been 
confined  to  the  transposition  of  32:11-16  to  place  it  with  the  other 
introduction;  the  addition  of  vv.  2-5  of  the  prose  introduction  and 
a  few  rather  meaningless  glosses  (e.g.,  34: 10,  16),  intended  to  empha- 
size the  application  of  the  argument. 

32:2-5. — This  repetitious  and  clumsy  portion  of  the  prose  intro- 
duction has  been  recognized  by  Hoffmann  and  Budde  as  a  secondary 
addition  to  the  chapter.  There  are  several  considerations  which 
make  this  conclusion  probable. 

1.  V.  2  introduces  Ehhu  ceremoniously  as  Elihu,  the  son  of 
Barachel,  the  Buzite,  of  the  tribe  of  Ram.     In  v.  6  he  is  again 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  39 

formally  introduced,  this  time  without  the  designation  "of  the  tribe 
of  Ram."  If  V.  2  had  originally  preceded,  the  formula  of  v.  6  would 
naturally  have  read,  "And  Elihu  answered  and  said,"  or  "Elihu, 
the  Buzite,  answered  and  said,"  in  the  fashion  of  the  early  dialogue. 

2.  The  verses  add  to  our  knowledge  nothing  which  is  not  to  be 
gathered  in  poetic  form  from  the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  It 
would  be  a  remarkably  stupid  author  who  took  pains  to  state  at 
length  in  prose  the  content  of  his  immediately  following  verses. 

3.  The  section  appears  like  an  awkward  summary  of  the  parallel 
introductions  in  32:6-10,  18-22;  32:11-16.  There  is  an  attempt  to 
unite  the  reasons  offered  by  Elihu  for  his  appearance  and  those  of 
the  second  Wise  Man.  The  result  is  a  most  unfortunate  combina- 
tion, in  which  EHhu's  anger  is  four  distinct  times  enkindled.  Vv. 
3,  5  correspond  to  vv.  11-13,  while  v.  4  answers  to  vv.  6,  7. 

It  has  been  the  fashion  to  accuse  the  unfortunate  Elihu  of  every 
form  of  literary  transgression,  but  if  he  could  be  relieved  of  the  mean- 
ingless repetition  of  chap.  32,  the  gravest  accusation  against  him 
would  be  removed.  The  other  sections  may  be  often  bombastic 
and  wordy — seldom  sublime — but  they  are  nowhere  so  intolerable 
as  chap.  32  in  its  present  form. 

If  any  probability  has  been  established  for  the  hypothesis  of  a 
double  authorship  of  the  Elihu  sections,  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose 
that  this  curious  and  awkward  prose  introduction  is  the  work  of  an 
editor  or  combiner,  who  thought  thus  to  unite  the  two  prefaces  and 
make  easier  the  transition.  Some  such  addition  we  should  expect 
under  these  circumstances. 

The  sections  32:11-16,  34  must  have  been  originally  preceded 
by  a  superscription  similar  to  v.  6.  This  supposition  raises  a  further 
question.  Is  it  probable  that  the  Second  Wise  Man  also  bore  the 
name  of  Elihu  ?  If  such  were  the  case,  the  polemic  must  have  been 
written  after  the  Elihu  Speeches  had  become  known  in  connection 
with  Job  and  the  name  already  current  was  adopted  to  secure  a  hear- 
ing for  the  later  contribution.  The  combination  of  the  two  at  a 
later  time  would  then  be  a  foregone  conclusion. 

Since  chap.  34,  however,  is  not  especially  directed  against  the 
Elihu  Speeches  but  rather  denounces  the  work  of  the  earlier  poet,  it 
was  probably  composed  quite  independently  of  them.     In  that  case 


v/ 


40  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

this  polemic  was  perhaps  headed  by  another  name,  which  the  editor 
saw  fit  to  discard  in  favor  of  Ehhu.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the 
phrase  "of  the  tribe  of  Ram"  in  the  prose  introduction  is  a  remnant 
of  the  title  of  the  Second  Wise  Man. 

The  attempt  has  already  been  made  to  characterize  his  contri- 
bution, which  we  have  sought  to  reconstruct.  It  represents  not  a 
supplement  to  the  Elihu  Speeches  but  another  criticism  on  the  Job 
controversy,  conceived  in  a  different  temper — another  outcome  of 
the  discussion  which  the  boldness  of  the  poem  could  not  have  failed 
to  arouse.  Whether  wTitten  at  the  same  time  as  the  Elihu  Speeches 
or  at  a  somewhat  later  date,  it  would  be  difficult  to  determine.  It 
appears  probable  that  the  more  personal  reply  to  Job  was  issued  first 
and  the  polemic  arraignment  to  the  Wise  Men  somewhat  later. 

There  are  perhaps  fewer  Aramaisms  in  chap.  34  than  the  other 
sections  exhibit;  as  poetry  it  is  stronger  and  less  halting — with  the 
possible  exception  of  chap.  37.  Both  writers  employ  the  prevailing 
meter  of  the  poem;  both  are  in  the  wider  sense  Wise  Men,  who 
write  after  the  manner  of  the  Wisdom  literature.  The  author  of 
chap.  34  shows  especially  the  influence  of  the  Wise  Men's  manner 
of  debate.  The  original  poem  had  been  carefully  studied  by  both 
and  is  quoted  with  considerable  accuracy;  such  references  are  usually 
noted  in  connection  with  the  text. 

THE    OMISSIONS    OF   THE    LXX   TEXT 

The  second  intricate  problem  to  be  considered  in  an  examination 
of  the  text  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  is  that  of  the  verses  omitted  by  the 
original  form  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  LXX.  The  unique  importance 
of  the  LXX  translation  is  recognized  by  all  Old  Testament  scholars. 
In  the  criticism  of  Jeremiah  the  large  omissions  of  the  LXX  have 
been  accepted  as  evidence  of  later  insertions  in  the  work.  In  regard 
to  Job,  however,  peculiar  suspicion  of  the  worth  of  its  testimony 
has  been  entertained,  especially  with  reference  to  the  omissions  of 
considerable  sections  which  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  text.  Up  to 
the  present  time  only  BickelP  and  Hatch^  among  scholars  have 

1  Wiener  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes  (1892),  pp.  137  fif.,  241  fif.,  327  flf. 
(1893),  pp.  1  fl.,  153  ff. 

2  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek,  pp.  215  f. 


The  Composition  of  the  Eliiiu  Speeches  41 

accepted  the  form  of  the  text  in  the  LXX  as  an  earHer  form  of  the 
text.  The  omissions  are  not  confined  to  the  EUhu  Speeches  but, 
as  is  well  known,  those  of  any  considerable  extent  are  more  frequent 
here  than  in  any  other  portion  of  the  book. 

Origen^  in  the  Epistle  to  Africanus  bears  testimony  to  the  omissions 
of  the  Greek  text  of  his  time.  He  found  verses  of  the  Hebrew 
lacking  in  the  LXX  to  the  number  of  three  or  four,  sometimes  even 
fourteen  or  nineteen  verses.  The  total  number  of  missing  verses 
he  estimated  as  four  hundred.  In  his  edition  of  the  Hexapla  Origen 
supplied  these  deficiencies  from  the  Greek  translation  of  Theodotion 
and  marked  the  insertions  with  asterisks.  The  following  Greek 
MSS  have  preserved  the  Hexaplaric  marks:  (1)  Cod.  Colbertinus, 
MS  1952  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris;  (2)  Cod.  Vaticanus 
346,  numbered  by  Holmes  and  Parsons  248. 

These  two  manuscripts  are  mentioned  by  Hatch,  Dillmann,^  and 
others  in  the  discussion  of  the  LXX  omissions,  but  they  appear  tc 
have  overlooked  the  fact  that  Codex  Alexandrinus,  an  uncial  Greek 
manuscript  in  the  British  Museum,  also  bears  traces  of  the  Hexa- 
plaric asterisks.  This  codex  was  collated  for  Holmes  and  Parsons 
and  noted  with  MS  248  as  showing  the  asterisks.  According  to 
the  evidence  of  these  editors  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  confirms  the 
fact  of  omission  in  the  majority  of  cases  where  it  is  evidenced  by 
the  other  witnesses  to  the  early  Greek  text. 

It  has  been  possible  to  examine  this  manuscript  only  in  the  fac- 
simile published  by  the  British  Museum.  This  examination,  how- 
ever, establishes  beyond  question  the  fact  that  the  codex  bore  the 
asterisks.  In  regard  to  the  larger  omissions,  which  will  be  later 
considered,  it  is  in  each  case  possible  to  confirm  the  fact  of  omission, 
though  the  limits  of  such  omission  are  sometimes  difficult  to  deter- 
mine, owing  to  the  faintness  of  the  marginal  indications.  The  evi- 
dence of  the  manuscript  is  quoted  where  the  writer's  observations 
tended  to  confirm  the  witness  of  Holmes  and  Parsons  and  in  a  few 
other  instances.  It  is,  at  all  events,  necessary  to  include  Codex 
Alexandrinus  as  an  important  witness  to  the  omissions  of  the  early 
LXX  text. 

1  Origen  Op.  ed.  Delarue,  Vol.  I,  p.  15. 
Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.   Akademie  zu  Berlin  (1890),  Bd.  II,  S.  1345. 


42  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Jerome^  translated  the  poem  of  Job  into  Latin  and  employed 
Origen's  asterisks.  In  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  Job  he  states 
that  he  has  added  missing  verses  to  the  nmnber  of  700  or  800.  Two 
Latin  MSS  preserve  the  asterisks:  (1)  a  MS  of  the  Bodleian  (Cod. 
Lat.  2426)  containing  the  Old  Latin  version  and  Jerome's  transla- 
tion; (2)  a  MS  of  the  Monastery  of  Marmoutiers  (published  by 
Sabatier  in  Bibliorum  Sacrorum  Latinae  Versiones  Antiguae) .  Origen's 
Hexaplaric  marks  are  also  found  in  the  Syriac  Hexapla  as  represented 
by  a  MS  of  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan. 

Finally  in  1883  Ciasca-  discovered  in  the  Museum  Borgianum  at 
Rome  a  Coptic-Sahidic  version  of  Job  which  lacks  substantially  the 
sections  indicated  by  the  asterisks  of  Origen's  Hexapla. 

These  witnesses  agree  as  to  many  small  and  some  larger  omis- 
sions of  the  early  LXX  text.  The  testimony  establishes  the  fact  of 
omission  at  certain  points  though  the  hmits  are  often  variously 
fixed.  In  estimating  the  value  of  their  combined  evidence,  certain 
considerations  must  be  borne  in  mind. 

1.  There  are  instances  in  which  Origen  has  obviously  failed  to 
recognize  the  Greek  of  the  LXX  as  a  translation  of  the  MT  and 
has  supplied  what  is  in  reality  a  dupUcate  translation  from  Theo- 
dotion;  e.g.,  36:286,  33;  37:1,  12.  Occasionally  he  has  assumed 
that  a  Greek  verse  represented  a  certain  Hebrew  text  to  which  it 
bears  only  a  superficial  resemblance,  e.g.,  36:12,  17. 

2.  Great  possibihties  of  error  are  inherent  in  this  system  of 
asterisks.  The  mark  might  easily  be  supposed  to  refer  to  an  entire 
couplet  when  but  one  line  was  really  omitted  or  vice  versa.  In 
transmission  the  asterisks  might  be  misplaced  or  lost  altogether. 

For  these  reasons  the  Sahidic  version  furnishes  an  invaluable 
check  on  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts, 
since  it  represents  the  form  of  the  LXX  text  before  the  insertions 
were  made  by  Origen.  The  Sahidic  occasionally  retains  a  verse  or 
line  which  the  Hexaplaric  marks  indicate  as  omitted  or  omits  some- 
thing which  they  retain.  There  is,  however,  a  surprising  agreement 
between  the  testimony  of  the  Syriac  Hexapla  and  the  Sahidic.  In 
general,  it  is  hardly  safe  to  trust  the  evidence  of  any  single  one  of 

1  Praefatio  in  Job,  IX  (1097). 

'  Published  in  Sacrorum  Bibliorum  Fragmenta  Copto-Sahidica,  Vol.  II. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  43 

these  groups  of  authorities — the  Greek  or  Latin  manuscripts,  the 
Syriac  Hexapla,  or  the  Sahidic — in  determining  the  question  of  an 
omission. 

When  the  hmits  of  the  primitive  LXX  text  have  been  determined 
with  some  degree  of  accuracy,  there  are  still  reservations  to  be  made 
before  accepting  it  as  a  witness  to  the  early  forms  of  the  Hebrew 
text.  Certain  well-defined  tendencies  of  the  LXX  translation 
become  manifest  in  a  study  of  the  omitted  passages  of  the  chapters 
under  discussion. 

1.  The  LXX  often  omits  or  condenses  what  appears  mere  repeti- 
tion in  altered  form  of  an  idea  previously  expressed.  This  may  apply 
to  a  phrase  (e.g.,  33:14;  34:22);  to  the  second  member  of  a  parallel 
verse  structure  (e.g.,  33:8a;  33:206);  to  a  verse  or  more  which 
restates  a  thought  in  altered  form  for  emphasis  (e.g.,  33:32,  33);  to 
quotations  from  other  portions  of  the  poem  whether  verbal  or  some- 
what less  exact  (34:3,  7).  The  recognition  of  such  a  tendency  on 
the  part  of  the  LXX  translator  affords  the  most  natural  explana- 
tion for  the  omission  of  such  verses  or  parts  of  verses  as  those  indi- 
cated above.  Interpreted  as  glosses  they  would  be  purposeless,  and  the 
quotations  from  the  dialogue  are  usually  essential  to  the  argument. 

Such  a  tendency  would  naturally  have  a  disastrous  effect  on  the 
translation  of  a  Hebrew  poem,  the  character  of  which  depends  so 
largely  on  balanced  structure  and  the  emphasis  of  repetition.  Its 
workings  are,  however,  to  be  detected  in  many  cases  by  comparison 
with  the  verse  structure  of  the  Hebrew.  Elsewhere,  if  this  motive 
for  omission  furnishes  a  reasonable  explanation,  it  is  safer  usually 
to  retain  the  Hebrew  text. 

2.  The  LXX  has  made  occasional  omissions  of  a  difficult  line  or 
verse  of  the  Hebrew  (e.g.,  36:19;  37:18).  Whether  this  explana- 
tion may  be  assumed  for  a  passage  of  several  verses  is  doubtful.  In 
such  cases  the  translator  appears  to  have  adapted  or  altered,  some- 
times to  have  mistranslated,  but  seldom  to  have  omitted  entirely. 

3.  The  Greek  translator  of  Job — or  translators  as  the  case  may 
be — has  been  accused  of  omitting  portions  repugnant  to  his  religious 
sense  or  Hellenic  taste.  In  view  of  the  quite  irreproachable  theology 
of  the  Elihu  Speeches  this  motive  for  omission  would  not  be  in  evi- 
dence here;   it  would  be  difficult  to  point  out  an  instance  where  it 


44  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

appears  probable.  Much  which  Elihu  says  must  have  offended 
a  really  delicate  Hellenic  sense,[but  the  omitted  passages  are  seldom 
more  open  to  this  somewhat  vague  charge  than  others  quite  faith- 
fully reproduced. 

These  tendencies  have  hardly  been  sufficiently  regarded  by  the 
two  scholars  who  have  accepted  the  witness  of  the  LXX  to  an  earlier 
form  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Hatch,  who  was  primarily  a  Greek  scholar, 
seems  to  have  confined  himself  too  closely  to  the  study  of  the  Greek 
text  without  sufficiently  considering  the  structure  and  thought  of 
the  original  Hebrew.  Moreover  he  has  occasionally  accepted  the 
widest  possible  limits  for  an  insertion  and  has  not  rigorously  employed 
the  corrective  of  the  balance  of  evidence. 

Dillmann'  subjected  Hatch's  results  to  a  searching  criticism  in 
which  he  has  undoubtedly  exposed  many  weak  points  in  the  argu- 
ment and  shown  that  the  LXX  omissions  can  often  be  explained 
by  arbitrary  motives.  But  his  conclusion  that  all  the  omissions 
are  to  be  accounted  for  in  this  way  is  too  sweeping.  Dillmann's 
verdict  was  indorsed  by  Driver,-  though  with  less  positiveness. 

Bickell  became  convinced  by  the  publication  of  the  Sahidic 
version  that  the  evidence  of  the  LXX  text  was  of  supreme  impor- 
tance. His  edition  of  Job^  follows  the  LXX  closely  in  both  large  and 
small  omissions — occasionally  when  the  parallel  verse  structure  or 
continuity  of  thought  is  obviously  destroyed.  He  has  also  a  special 
strophical  and  metrical  theory  which  necessitates  some  omissions 
other  than  those  indicated  by  the  LXX  text. 

If  the  treatment  of  Hatch  or  Bickell  is  adopted  in  its  entirety,  it 
supposes  a  very  active  redactor  of  the  poem  responsible  for  many 
small  glosses  and  numerous  larger  additions  of  varied  character 
and  excellence  or  innumerable  corrections  and  additions  by  many 
hands  after  the  time  of  the  Greek  translation. 

The  conclusion  from  the  evidence  can  hardly  be  summarized  in 
a  sentence  to  the  effect  that  the  passages  omitted  by  the  LXX  do 
or  do  not  constitute  a  part  of  the  original  Hebrew  text.  Each  case 
must  be  judged  for  itself,  in  accordance  with  whatever  canons  of 

1  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  Akademie  zu  Berlin  (1890),  Bd.  II,  S.  1345. 

2  The  Contemporary  Review  (1896),  pp.  257  f. 
»  Das  Buck  Hiob  (1894). 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  45 

criticism  a  study  of  the  material  may  enable  one  to  establish.  As 
has  already  been  stated,  the  briefer  omissions  may  usually  be 
explained  by  some  of  the  tendencies  of  the  translator. 

This  explanation  is,  however,  neither  satisfying  nor  adequate  for 
the  larger  connected  sections  omitted  in  34 :  28-33 ;  36:7-17;  36 :  26 — 
37:14.  It  becomes  necessary  in  these  cases  to  inquire  whether  the 
hypothesis  of  an  interpolation  in  the  Hebrew,  after  the  first  LXX 
translation,  is  not  more  in  accord  with  internal  probability  and  the 
textual  evidence.  A  study  of  the  omitted  verses  in  the  section 
36:26 — 37:14  affords  the  clearest  demonstration  that  such  an  addi- 
tion has  taken  place,  and  this  section  will  therefore  be  considered 
first.  The  actual  evidence  of  the  manuscripts,  together  with  the 
suggestion  of  various  scholars,  is  given  in  the  notes  on  the  text. 

36:26 — 37:14. — The  general  theme  of  this  section  is  easily  stated 
— the  greatness  and  wisdom  of  God  as  revealed  in  some  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  Nature.  On  closer  examination  the  passage  presents  a 
decidedly  confused  and  disconnected  description  of  a  rainstorm  and 
of  the  approach  of  winter,  heralded  by  snow  and  ice.  Of  this  account 
36:33  in  its  present  form  is  quite  unintelligible  and  the  transitions 
from  the  thunderstorm  to  the  snowfall  and  again  in  37:11  to  the 
lightning  are,  to  say  the  least,  sudden.  The  interruption  between 
the  lightning  and  the  swift-following  thunder  caused  by  the  verses 
36:33,  37:1  is  very  awkward.  Without  constant  reference  to  the 
Hebrew  text,  it  would  be  impossible  to  make  clear  the  puzzling  lack 
of  antecedent  in  some  instances  or  the  remarkable  construction  which 
must  be  assumed  in  some  verses.  Hoffmann,  Siegfried,  Budde,  and 
Duhm  have  resorted  to  various  radical  emendations  in  an  attempt 
to  improve  the  sequence  and  construction  of  the  verses  in  question. 

Yet  the  description  might  pass  as  a  whole  in  spite  of  its  manifest 
weakness  were  it  not  for  the  strong  external  evidence  to  the  contrary. 
This  evidence  may  be  summarized  as  follows:  the  LXX  supported 
by  the  Sahidic  and  Syriac  Hexapla  omitted  several  of  these  verses 
(36:26,  276,  28a,  29-32;  37:2-5a,  66-11,  12a6,  13)— verses  which, 
standing  alone,  develop  one  theme  consistently  and  the  omission  of 
which  leaves  the  text  far  clearer  and  more  intelligible.  In  the  face 
of  this  evidence  the  probability  of  an  interpolation  becomes  consider- 
able.    The  following  division  adheres  almost  without  exception  to 


46  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

the  outlines  suggested  by  a  careful  comparison  of  the  omitted  sec- 
tions in  the  three  Greek  and  the  Latin  manuscripts,  the  Syriac 
Hexapla,  and  the  Sahidic  version. 

V.  26  of  chap.  36,  omitted  by  all  these  witnesses,  forms  pre- 
sumably the  starting-point  for  the  insertion.  Of  the  next  two  verses 
it  is  evident  that  line  6  of  v.  27  and  hne  a  of  v.  28  did  not  stand  in 
the  LXX  text.  They  might  have  been  omitted  as  superfluous,  but 
with  a  slight  text  emendation,  supported  by  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate, 
they  form  an  excellent  independent  verse  structure.  In  the  same 
way  V.  27a  and  v.  286  (LXX,  Sah.  text)  compose  a  good  intelligible 
couplet. 

276  He  poureth  out  the  rain  as  His  mist, 
28a  Which  the  skies  drop  down  from  above. 
27a  For  He  restraineth  the  drops  of  the  water, 
28&  Makes  His  cloud  to  o'ershadow  many  men. 

Though  these  verses  are  at  least  as  well  balanced  and  readable  as 
the  present  text  there  would  seem  no  necessity  for  division,  were  it 
not  for  the  evidence  of  the  verses  which  follow.  Vv.  29-32,  of  which 
the  LXX  apparently  had  not  a  trace,  continue  after  vv.  276,  28a  a 
description  of  the  rainstorm;  this  is  curiously  interrupted  by  36:33; 
37:L 

The  asterisks  indicate  that  these  verses  (36:33;  37:1)  were  lack- 
ing in  the  LXX,  but  a  closer  examination  shows  that  both  the  Greek 
and  the  Sahidic  texts  read  them.  After  v.  28  are  found  in  the 
Sahidic  and  Syriac  Hexapla,  the  Gk.  MSS  B.  Alex.  Colb.  Vat.  (248) 
and  nine  other  cursives,  two  verses,  which  were  supposedly  not  in 
the  Hebrew  text.  Dillmann,  Hatch,  Bickell,  and  Duhm  have,  how- 
ever, recognized  that  the  second  of  these  verses  represents  the  Hebrew 
of  37  :L  (For  the  Gk.  and  Heb.  text,  cf.  the  notes  on  the  text  of 
these  verses.)  The  possibility  is  thus  suggested  that  the  former 
verse  may  represent  the  Hebrew  verse  which  precedes  37:1 — that 
is  36:33.  In  its  present  unintelligible  form,  the  Hebrew  appears 
unlike  the  Greek,  but  without  violent  alteration  it  could  be  recon- 
structed to  read  as  follows : 

He  appointeth  a  season  for  the  cattle; 
They  know  the  place  of  their  lying  down. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  47 

This  certainly  represents  the  Greek  rendering,  is  not  far  removed 
from  the  radicals  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  gives  an  intelligible  and 
appropriate  reading.  It  must  be  remembered  that  if  these  verses 
(36:33;  37:1)  stood  in  a  wrong  context  in  the  Hebrew,  considerable 
corruption  might  ensue  to  make  them  readable  after  36:32.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  would  be  strange  if  the  Greek  translator  had 
invented  a  verse  so  like  the  Hebrew  and  yet  so  much  more  intelli- 
gible and  appropriate.  These  verses  should,  then,  follow  v.  286  in 
the  original  text. 

A  further  evidence  for  their  proper  position  remains.  MS  C 
of  the  Greek  and  twenty-one  cursives  read  these  verses  after  37:5a, 
followed  by  v.  56.  Now  if  we  omit  the  verses  which  the  LXX 
actually  lacked  (36:29-32;  37:2-5a),  the  verses  under  discussion 
(36:33;  37:1)  are  found  in  the  same  position  in  both  groups  of 
Greek  manuscripts,  the  Syriac  Hexapla,  and  the  Sahidic — namely 
after  36:286  and  preceding  37:56.  The  verse  sequence  is  then 
perfectly  acceptable  and  natural. 

27a      For  He  restraineth  the  drops  of  the  water, 
286      Makes  His  cloud  to  o'ershadow  many  men. 
33        He  appointeth  a  season  for  the  cattle; 

They  know  the  place  of  their  lying  down. 
37 : 1    At  this  is  not  thy  heart  stirred. 
And  leapeth  it  not  within  thee  ? 
56      Great  things  He  worketh, — we  know  Him  not; 
6a      For  He  saith  to  the  snow,  "Fall  earthward." 

The  foregoing  verses  say  nothing  of  the  rainstorm,  while  the  omitted 
sections  give  a  connected  and  vivid  description  of  one.  Is  it  probable 
that  this  is  mere  coincidence  ? 

The  division  is  equally  clear  in  the  verses  which  follow.  As  it 
stands  37:4c  has  no  proper  conclusion,  "He  stayeth  them  not  when 
His  voice  is  heard."  The  ''them"  has  no  logical  antecedent  nor 
following  explanation,  but  if  the  next  half-line'  of  the  insertion 
V.  66  is  read  after  it,  the  construction  and  thought  are  admirable. 

He  stayeth  not,  when  His  voice  is  heard, 
The  rain  and  His  mighty  storm. 

V.  66  in  its  present  position  follows  very  curiously  upon  v.  6a. 

*  V.  5a  is  probably  a  gloss  on  v.  46.     Cf.  notes  on  text 


48  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

The  gathering  rainstorm  is  well  portrayed  in  the  verses  of  the 
insertion— the  clouds  (36:29,  30),  the  lightning  (36:32),  the  thunder 
(37:2-4)  and  at  last  the  sharp,  fierce,  downpour  of  the  rain  (37:4c,  66). 

V.  7^  should  undoubtedly  follow  v.  66.  It  is  the  snow,  and  not 
the  rain,  which  sets  a  seal  upon  men's  work  and  leads  them  to  ponder 
the  wonder  of  God's  way.  The  phrase  is  very  apt  when  one  remem- 
bers how  a  great  snowstorm  hinders  the  customary  activity  of  men. 
V.  8  tells  of  its  effect  on  the  wild  animals,  vv.  9,  10  of  the  coming 
of  cold  and  ice. 

With  vv.  11-126,  which  the  best  witnesses  for  the  LXX  text  omit, 
the  theme  is  again  the  rainstorm  of  which  vv.  7-10  have  been  silent. 
V.  12  with  the  exception  of  the  last  clause  is  indicated  by  asterisks 
in  some  forms  of  the  Greek,  but  the  present  LXX  has  a  duplicate 
translation  of  v.  12c  and  it  is  also  read  by  the  Sahidic.  Only  v.  12a, 
6,  referring  to  the  lightning  and  cloud  of  v.  11,  should,  therefore,  be 
included  with  the  insertion.  This  couplet  followed  by  v.  13  furnishes 
a  fitting  conclusion  to  the  poem  of  the  rainstorm. 

12a    And  is  turned  about  on  every  side, 
To  work  according  to  His  wisdom, — 

13  Whether  for  judgment  on  His  land, 
Or  if  in  mercy  He  send  it. 

V.  12c,  d,  also  forms  a  good  couplet,  which  summarizes  the  preced- 
ing verses  of  the  original  text,  and  introduces  the  exhortation  to  Job 

in  V.  14. 

12c    All  these  things  He  hath  commanded  them, 
12d    On  the  widespread  face  of  the  earth. 

14  Hear  this.  Oh  Job,  and  give  pause; 
Ponder  the  marvels  of  God. 

If  the  lines  of  division  suggested  by  the  external  evidence  are  fol- 
lowed, two  distinct  and  independent  conceptions  are  to  be  distin- 
guished in  the  section  36:26 — 37:14.  The  verses  omitted  in*  the 
primitive  LXX  compose  a  Psalm  of  a  Thunderstorm — God's  mighty 
instrument  of  blessing  or  punishment;  there  is  no  allusion  to  Job 
or  to  other  phenomena  of  nature.  The  argument  of  Elihu  freed 
from  the  interwoven  verses  becomes  far  clearer.  God's  providence 
is  shown  forth  by  the  overhanging  clouds,  by  His  care  for  the  dumb 

'  Cf.  notes  on  text. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  49 

cattle  and  the  wonders  of  the  snow  and  ice,  A  similar  thought  is 
developed  in  Ps.  147:8  f. 

After  V.  13  only  one  verse  is  omitted  by  the  LXX  witnesses  in 
the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  On  a  theory  of  arbitrary  omission, 
it  would  be  remarkable  that  the  section  36:26 — 37:14  should  have 
been  so  radically  abbreviated  and  the  following  section  left  almost 
untouched.  Nothing  in  the  character  of  the  omitted  verses,  linguistic 
or  religious,  suggests  a  reason  for  such  a  procedure.  The  mere 
supposition  that  the  LXX  translators  wished  to  relieve  the  poem  of 
undue  length  cannot  account  for  the  phenomenon  of  so  consistent 
and  independent  an  omission. 

The  strongest  argument  for  the  probability  of  an  insertion  is 
to  be  drawn  from  the  vicissitudes  of  the  verses  36:33;  37:1.  No 
theory  of  omission  will  explain  satisfactorily  their  present  position 
in  the  text,  that  in  the  Sahidic  and  some  Greek  MSS  after  36:28,  in 
others  a  place  after  37:5a.  In  the  interweaving  of  the  two  texts 
the  verses  were  inserted  where  they  now  stand  and  became  corrupted. 
Origen  failed  to  recognize  that  the  Hebrew  verses  were  represented 
in  the  Greek  and  supplied  a  duplicate  translation  from  Theodotion, 
allowing  the  Greek  verses  to  retain  their  original  position  after 
V.  286.  In  other  Greek  manuscripts  when  the  insertion  was  made 
from  Theodotion,  the  connection  of  these  verses  (36:33;  37:1)  with 
37:56  was  retained  and  the  insertion  was  introduced  before  instead 
of  after  them. 

Bickell  has  followed  the  outlines  of  this  division  in  most  cases, 
but  by  reading  the  MT  in  36 :  33  he  loses  the  clearness  of  the  distinc- 
tion. He  has  also  retained  parts  of  37:11,  12  which  belong  with 
the  insertion,  and  he  has  not  attempted  to  reconstruct  the  inserted 
poem.  Hatch  suggested  that  in  the  section  36:22 — 37:13  four 
poems — two  original  and  two  added — had  been  fused  together.  The 
theory  is  open  to  Dillmann's  criticism,  that  it  is  far  too  artificial. 

A  motive  for  the  insertion  of  the  Psalm  of  the  Rainstorm  is  not 
far  to  seek.  Elihu's  argument  was  drawn  from  the  wonders  of 
creation,  and  the  psalm  was  in  entire  harmony.  36:27a  perhaps 
gave  the  immediate  suggestion  for  insertion.  The  title,  Psalm  of 
the  Rainstorm,  has  been  employed  for  this  poem  because  of  its 
likeness  to  the  psalm  character  in  the  religious  interpretation  of 


50  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

nature.  A  similar  theme  is  developed  in  Ps.  107:33-37.  The  sav- 
ing mercy  of  the  rain  upon  a  hot,  dry  land  might  well  inspire  a  psalm 
of  thanksgiving,  even  as  the  terror  of  the  lightning  would  suggest 
swift  divine  judgment.  The  poem  as  a  whole  is  printed  below  in 
order  to  show  its  continuity  and  the  consistency  of  its  theme. 

36:26  Lo,  God  is  exalted,  we  know  Him  not; 

The  number  of  His  years  is  unsearchable. 
27  He  poureth  out  the  rain  as  His  mist, 

28a        Which  the  skies  drop  down  from  above. 

29  Who  can  know  the  spreading  of  the  cloud. 
The  thunderings  of  His  pavihon  ? 

30  Lo,  about  Him  He  spreadeth  the  cloud, 
And  He  covereth  the  tops  of  the  mountains. 

31  For  thus  He  judgeth  the  peoples; 
Yea,  and  gives  food  in  abundance. 

32  About  His  hands  He  wrappeth  the  li^itning, 
He  directeth  it  unto  its  goal. 

37:2  Hark  now,  and  hear  the  rumbling  of  His  voice, 

The  muttering  that  goeth  forth  from  His  mouth. 

3  Under  all  the  heavens  He  sendeth  it  forth. 
His  hghtning  upon  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

4  And  after  it  roareth  a  voice, — 

He  thundereth  with  the  voice  of  His  majestj^ 
He  stayeth  not,  when  His  voice  is  heard, 
66        The  rain  and  His  mighty  storm. 
11  Yea,  He  ladeth  the  tliick  cloud  with  lightnin  ; 

The  cloud  scattereth  forth  His  hght, 
12a       And  is  turned  about  on  every  side, 
,  h        To  work  according  to  His  wisdom, — 
13  Whether  for  judgment  on  His  land 

Or  if  in  mercy  He  send  it. 

34:28-33. — External  and  internal  evidence  unite  to  demonstrate 
the  fact  of  an  interpolation  in  36:25 — 37:14.  In  regard  to  the 
omitted  sections  in  34:28-33  and  36:7-17  the  matter  is  less  clear. 

In  34:28-33  six  continuous  verses  are  shown  by  all  the  chief 
witnesses  to  have  been  omitted  in  the  early  form  of  the  LXX  text. 
The  question  again  arises  as  to  whether  the  omission  may  be  due  to 
the  difficulty  of  the  text  or  its  reiteration  of  earlier  statements. 
There  are,  it  is  true,  problems  of  interpretation  in  vv.  31-33,  but 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  51 

the  actual  translation  need  not  have  offered  exceptional  difficulty. 
Theodotion  and  the  other  versions  render  the  verses  with  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  accuracy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  thought  of 
the  passage  is  quite  distinct  from  what  has  preceded.  It  introduces 
the  national  disaster  of  the  reign  of  an  evil  king — a  decidedly  new 
thought. 

If  there  appears  no  obvious  reason  for  so  extensive  an  omission 
at  this  point,  certain  indications  lead  us  to  question  the  place  of 
these  verses  in  the  context.     The  connection  between  v.  28  and  v. 

27  or  V.  26  is  very  strange. 

< 

27  For  that  they  turned  from  following  Him, 
Unto  all  His  ways  gave  no  heed. 

28  To  bring  unto  Him  the  cry  of  the  poor, 
And  the  cry  of  the  needy  He  heareth. 

The  sequence  is  not  greatly  improved  if,  with  Budde,  Duhm, 
and  Beer,  v.  27  is  omitted  as  a  gloss.     V.  26  reads: 

He  crusheth  and  dismayeth  the  wicked; 

In  the  sight  of  men's  eyes  doth  He  smite  them. 

V.  28  follows  strangely  on  this.  Must  God  then  destroy  the 
wicked  before  the  cry  of  the  poor  and  needy  can  reach  him? 
The  versions,  moreover,  offer  no  support  for  the  omission  of  v. 
27.  The  transition  at  the  end  of  the  section  is  no  better.  After 
V.  27,  which  summarizes  the  account  of  God's  visitations  on  the 
wicked,  would  follow  most  naturally  the  judgment  on  Job  in  vv. 
34-37.  The  arrangement  already  suggested,  whereby  34:27  is 
followed  by  35:15,  16  and  34:33-37,  furnishes  a  far  more  appropriate 
conclusion  to  the  chapter.  It  cannot,  however,  be  affirmed  on  that 
ground  that  the  verses  might  not  have  formed  a  part  of  the  Elihu 
sections.  The  evidence  only  indicates  that  the  passage  appears 
out  of  place  in  the  charge  against  Job  and  that  the  arbitrary  omis- 
sion of  this  unbroken  section  is  more  difficult  to  explain  than  its 
insertion.  A  final  decision  on  this  case  is  only  possible  after  a 
consideration  of  the  omission  in  36:6-17. 

36:7h-9,  lOa-13,  16,  17. — The  asterisks  in  this  section  indicate 
that  the  LXX  translation  lacked  the  vv.  56-9,  106,  c,  11,  13,  16.  It 
has  however  been  recognized  by  various  scholars — Bickell,  Dillmann, 


52  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Budde,  Duhm — ^that  the  LXX  text  of  vv.  12a,  15,  17  shows  traces 
of  the  Hebrew  text  through  v.  la.  This  conclusion  is  borne  out  by 
the  evidence  of  the  Sahidic  text.  Duhm  remarks  in  this  connection, 
"Uebrigens  fehlen  die  nachsten  fiinf  Disticha  76-11  in  der  urspriing- 
lichen  LXX  und  es  ist  nicht  immoglich,  dass  Hatch  und  Bickell  mit 
ihrer  Streichung  im  Recht  sind,  doch  wiirde  ich  ihnen  eher  folgen, 
wenn  LXX  entweder  v.  11  hatte  oder  auch  v.  12  vermissen  Hesse." 

There  are  two  objections  to  be  raised  to  this  statement:  (1)  The 
LXX  undoubtedly  read  v.  10a,  as  the  asterisks  and  the  Sahidic  text 
indicate.  (2)  V.  12  of  the  LXX  cannot  represent  v.  12  of  the  Hebrew 
text  which,  therefore,  belongs  with  the  omitted  verses,  106-13. 
(Cf.  notes  on  text  of  v.  12.)  Undoubtedly  vv.  11,  12  of  the  present 
text  complement  each  other  and  if  one  of  them  stood  in  the  original 
text,  the  evidence  for  an  insertion  would  be  greatly  weakened. 

What  the  Greek  v.  12 — supported  by  the  Sahidic  and  a  quotation 
in  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom.  4.  26,  p.  641) — actually  represents 
is  an  exact  translation  of  the  Heb.  v.  6a,  followed  by  a  couplet  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew.  (For  the  Greek  text  and  its  Hebrew  equiva- 
lent cf.  the  notes  on  the  text.)  The  Hebrew  represented  may  be 
translated  as  follows: 

For  they  seek  not  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord ; 
And  chastened,  they  yet  hearken  not. 

The  Greek  of  v.  12  cannot  be  regarded  even  as  a  free  translation  of 
the  Massoretic  text,  but  a  not  too  close  observer  in  comparing  texts 
might  suppose  that  it  represented  the  Hebrew  because  of  one  similar 
phrase.  The  verse  would,  in  consequence,  remain  without  asterisks, 
though  it  obviously  belongs  with  the  insertion  in  vv.  76-9,  106-13, 16. 
When  the  real  limits  of  the  omission  have  been  recognized,  the 
problem  is  scarcely  less  puzzling.  If  the  LXX  translators  are 
responsible  for  the  discrepancies  between  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
texts,  grave  charges  are  to  be  laid  at  their  door.  They  not  only, 
on  this  supposition,  omitted  eighteen  lines  from  a  possible  thirty 
in  vv.  76-17,  but  they  placed  v.  6a  before  v.  12,  which  they 
altered  beyond  recognition,  v.  7a  after  v.  15,  and  v.  76  after  v.  16. 
Do  we  find  elsewhere  such  curiously  violent  treatment  of  the 
Hebrew  at  the  hands  of  its  Greek  translators  ? 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  53 

A  reasonable  motive  for  such  a  procedure  is  difficult  to  find. 
The  diction  of  the  passage  is  unusually  prosaic  but,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  V.  16,  not  obscure.  Neither  is  there  anything  objectionable 
from  a  religious  point  of  view.  The  verses  have,  indeed,  a  more 
general  reference  than  most  of  Elihu's  words,  with  no  particular 
allusion  to  Job's  case.  But  if  the  LXX  translators  merely  saw  fit 
to  abbreviate  the  poem  here,  it  is  curious  that  they  so  unnecessarily 
violated  its  order.  Vv.  6  and  la  might  have  retained  their  present 
position  and  been  followed  by  v.  10a.  The  procedure  appears  more 
like  that  of  an  interpolator  than  of  a  translator  who  held  his  text 
in  any  degree  of  respect. 

A  further  test  may  be  applied  to  discover  whether  the  remaining 
verses,  read  in  the  order  of  the  Greek,  form  a  clearer,  more  intel- 
ligible argument.  The  LXX  evidently  read  the  entire  v.  5  but  con- 
densed it  somewhat.  This  was  followed  by  a  verse  consisting  of  v. 
10a  and  v.  6a  (=Gk.  v.  12a).  It  is  obvious  that  v.  6a  in  the  pres- 
ent Gk.  text  is  a  duplicate  translation  from  Theodotion  of  the  line 
which  occurs  in  the  LXX  before  v.  12.  Verse  12,  according  to  the 
Greek,  should  be  followed  by  vv.  14,  15.  In  the  LXX  of  v.  156  is 
recognizable  the  Hebrew  v.  66  and  in  v.  17  of  the  Greek,  v.  7a  of 
the  Hebrew.     Elihu's  argument  would  then  be  as  follows : 

5  Lo,  God  is  mighty  in  strength; 

Rejecteth  not  the  pure  of  heart. 
10a  Through  chastening  He  openeth  their  ear, 

6a  But  he  granteth  not  life  to  the  wicked. 

12  (LXX)    For  they  seek  not  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord; 
And  chastened,  they  yet  hearken  not. 

14  Their  soul  perisheth  in  youth. 
Their  life  like  to  the  unclean. 

15  But  the  afflicted  by  affliction  He  dehvereth, 
Through  suffering  He  openeth  his  ear. 

66  Judgment  for  the  oppressed  He  giveth; 

From  the  just  withholdeth  not  justice. 
18  Let  not  wrath  stir  thee  against  chastening, 

Greatness  of  ransom  turn  away  thy  heart. 

By  the  omission  of  the  obelized  verses,  the  development  of  the  thought 
does  not  lose  in  force  and  certainly  gains  infinitely  in  clearness. 


54  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Beginning  with  the  antithetic  parallelism  in  v.  5  the  passage 
contrasts  God's  dealing  with  the  wicked  and  with  those  whom  He 
would  save  through  affliction  and  chastening.  Vv.  18,  19,  21  convey 
the  warning  which  this  lesson  should  bring  to  Job.  "Be  not  rebel- 
lious against  the  suffering  God  inflicts.  Become  not  as  the  wicked." 
The  thought  is  clearly  the  one  most  characteristic  of  Elihu,  more 
directly  expressed  than  in  chap.  33.  Dillmann  has  declared  that 
after  the  omission  of  the  obelized  verses  Elihu's  Leidenzucht  teaching 
is  no  longer  recognizable.  We  cannot  escape  the  impression  that 
it  is  far  more  consistently  and  clearly  developed  than  in  the  present 
form  of  the  text  and  nothing  of  the  argument  for  Job's  case  is  lost. 
It  is  possible  to  read  the  chapter  as  it  stands  and  win  a  fairly  intel- 
ligible sense,  but  it  gains  infinitely  when  the  LXX  text  is  followed. 
Is  it  justifiable  to  assert  that  this  desirable  result  is  due  to  the  literary 
taste  of  the  LXX  translators  ? 

Dillmann  has  further  stated  that  it  would  take  a  magician  to 
reconstruct  the  Hebrew  text  from  the  Greek  but  the  latter  may  easily 
be  understood  as  a  free  reworking  of  the  Hebrew.  The  statement 
is  hardly  accurate.  In  the  verses  which  the  LXX  reads,  it  repro- 
duces the  corresponding  Hebrew  with  considerable  accuracy.  Only 
one  verse  of  its  text  (v.  12)  has  apparently  been  replaced  by  one  of 
the  insertion.  The  order  of  the  verses,  as  shown  by  the  Sahidic, 
appears  very  natural.  The  easier  hypothesis  is  really  that  of  an 
interpolator. 

The  couplet  vv.  10a,  6a  was  divided  and  combined  at  two  different 
points  with  the  insertion;  the  verse  66,  7a  was  shifted  to  a  position 
before  the  insertion  to  make  place  for  vv.  16,17.  The  main  section 
vv.  76-9,  106-13  was  then  added,  interrupted  only  by  the  employ- 
ment of  V.  10a,  and  the  original  v.  12  was  either  dropped  at  this  time 
or  later  identified  with  the  present  v.  12.  After  vv.  14,  15  the  inter- 
polator restored  connection  with  the  context  by  the  addition  of 
w.  16,  17  referring  to  Job.  The  process  of  rearrangement  is  not 
remarkably  complicated  for  an  interpolator  but  an  equal  amount 
of  alteration  by  a  Greek  translator  is  almost  unexplainable,  since 
the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  text  has  not  been  wrested. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  character  and  continuity  of  the  omitted 
verses   (76-9,    106-13).     They  form   seven   quite   regular,    though 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  55 

very  impoetic,  couplets  and,  read  consecutively,  picture  the  fate  of 
evil  kings.  When  God  punishes  their  wickedness  and  commands 
obedience,  the  choice  of  repentance  and  happiness  or  a  dreadful  end 
in  their  folly  and  hardness  of  heart,  is  before  them.  Into  Elihu's 
argument  from  God's  dealing  with  the  wicked  and  the  suffering  right- 
eous, they  bring  the  thought  of  the  fortune  of  royal  evil-doers.  It 
is  not  altogether  out  of  harmony  with  the  general  theme  but  it  has 
no  real  significance  for  Job's  problem.  Says  Duhm,  "Das  (v.  4) 
wird  gleich  im  Folgenden  an  einem  Beispiel  weiter  entwickelt,  das 
wirklich  'von  weit  her'  aus  hohen  Regionen  geholt  ist  und  seinem 
pathetischen  Geschmack  entspricht;  er  [Elihu]  redet  von  Konigen 
ebenso  oft  wie  der  Dichter  Hiobs  selten." 

If  this  section  be  compared  with  34:28-33  a  remarkable  simi- 
larity of  thought  is  to  be  observed.  In  chap.  34  it  is  also  a 
question  of  God's  mysterious  providence,  "when  he  setteth  a  god- 
less man  as  king,"  and  of  the  repentance  such  a  man  should  show 
(v.  31).  Duhm  suggests  also  a  relation  between  the  two  sections. 
34:33  again  adds  an  afterthought  for  Job;  34:33  and  36:16,17  are 
not  unlike  in  tone. 

If  the  two  sections  are  really  later  insertions,  might  we  not  hit 
upon  an  explanation  for  their  addition  in  their  common  political 
reference  ?  It  is  possible  that  it  may  not  have  been  Elihu  who 
was  so  given  to  royal  illustrations.  The  single  mention  of  a 
king  elsewhere  (34:18)  is  quite  incidental.  Might  not  these  two 
prosaic  and  inappropriate  amplifications  of  Ehhu's  theme  have  been 
added  at  a  time  when  hated  and  evil  kings  were  the  chief  affliction 
to  be  endured  by  the  people  of  God  ?  At  such  a  time  a  later  reader 
might  have  been  moved  to  insert  these  references  to  national  calami- 
ties, since  the  poem  so  conspicuously  ignored  this  phase  of  the 
problem.  Even  the  reign  of  a  wicked  king  over  the  nation  is  to  be 
accepted  as  a  part  of  the  divine  order. 

If  He  be  silent  who  shall  condemn  ? 

If  He  hide  His  face,  who  then  shall  chide  Him  ? 

AUke  with  a  man  or  a  nation, 

When  He  setteth  a  godless  man  as  king,  etc. 

But  let  such  a  king  show  repentance  toward  God  or  await  the  hapless 
reward  of  his  folly. 


56  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

But  if  not,  they  pass  unto  Sheol, 
And  without  knowledge,  they  perish. 

A  period  which  might  have  suggested  an  interpolation  of  this  kind 
would  be  that  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The  most  natural  explana- 
tion of  a  reference  to  an  evil  king  in  later  Je'wash  literature  is  to 
connect  it  with  this  bitterly  hated  monarch.  But  the  tone  of  the 
remarks  is  perhaps  a  milder  one  than  that  time  of  fierce  hatred  and 
despair  would  have  produced.  The  Book  of  Daniel  shows  how  the 
stress  of  that  period  found  definite  literary  expression. 

Another  somewhat  less  hated  ruler  of  the  Jews  who  might  sug- 
gest himself  is  Ptolemy  Philopator — Ptolemy  IV.  He  reversed  the 
kindly  policy  which  his  predecessors  had  adopted  toward  the  Jews 
and  incurred  their  hatred,  according  to  the  Third  Book  of  Maccabees, 
by  attempting  to  force  his  way  into  the  temple.  Whatever  may  be 
thought  of  the  historical  worth  of  this  narrative,  it  at  any  rate  bears 
witness  to  a  very  strong  prejudice  among  the  Jews  against  this  degen- 
erate descendant  of  the  Ptolemies.  His  persecution  of  the  Jews  of 
Alexandria  is  a  matter  of  history.  The  character  of  these  inter- 
polations might  indicate  an  allusion  to  his  reign  (222-205  B.C.);  he  is 
probably  alluded  to  in  Ecclesiastes  4:13  in  a  manner  which  would 
support  such  a  hypothesis:  "Better  is  a  youth  poor  and  wise  than 
a  king  old  and  foolish,  who  no  longer  knows  how  to  be  admonished.'" 

The  political  reference  is,  however,  too  general  to  be  referred 
with  certainty  to  a  special  period  of  late  Jewish  history.  More  than 
one  reign  would  have  justified  the  attitude  of  the  writer  regarding 
the  aSliction  of  an  evil  king  and  might  have  suggested  such  additions 
to  a  book  wiiich  professed  to  consider  the  problem  of  evil  and  the 
divine  government  of  the  universe. 

The  evidence  of  the  LXX,  the  special  and  peculiar  character  of 
the  two  sections,  in  thought  and  to  some  extent  in  form,  make  it 
probable  that  they  are  later  interpolations;  the  improvement  in  the 
text,  resulting  from  their  omission,  strengthens  this  probability. 
Though  the  evidence  is  not  so  unmistakable  as  in  36:26 — 37:14,  the 
hypothesis  of  interpolation  furnishes  a  more  satisfactory  explana- 
tion of  these  passages  than  that  of  arbitrary  omission.  Moreover, 
the  confirmation  of  the  LXX  testimony  in  regard  to  one  of  the 

>  Of.  Barton,  Ecclesiastes  (1908),  p.  61. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  57 

so-called  omissions  must  necessarily  strengthen  confidence  in  its 
witness  to  similar  large  omissions.  Finally,  if  these  verses  (34:28- 
33;  36:76-9,  106-13,  16,  17)  were  interpolated,  the  suggestion  of 
their  political  bearing  would  offer  a  reasonable  motive  for  their 
insertion. 

Though  they  do  not  properly  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  dis- 
cussion it  seems  best  to  consider  briefly  the  larger  omissions  which 
the  Greek  text  shows  in  the  remainder  of  the  poem.  Of  connected 
omissions,  including  five  or  more  verses,  which  are  comparable  with 
those  discussed  above  there  are  three :  21:28-33;  26:5-11;  28:14-19. 

28:14-19. — The  praise  of  Wisdom  in  chap.  28  is  quite  generally 
conceded  to  be  a  later  addition  to  the  poem.  Nevertheless  vv. 
14-19  (omitted  by  Codd.  Alex.  Vat.  Colb.  Marm.  and  the  Syr.  Hex. 
and  Sahidic)  stamp  themselves  as  a  secondary  insertion.  Budde, 
who  regards  the  chapter  as  genuine,  omits  vv.  15-20  as  a  gloss; 
Dillmann  agrees  that  here  the  LXX  omission  coincides  with  a  real 
interpolation  in  the  text.  Vv.  15-19  interrupt  the  thought  of  the 
unattainableness  of  Wisdom  with  the  conventional  praise  of  her 
value  (cf.  Prov.  3:14,  15;  8:10,  11,  19).  The  section  is  almost 
certainly  a  bit  of  later  expansion. 

The  likeness  between  v.  12  and  v.  20  seems  to  Budde  and  Dill- 
mann indicative  of  a  duplication  of  v.  12  to  restore  the  connection 
before  v.  21.  They  therefore  conclude  that  the  LXX  translator 
read  the  present  text  and  has  not  maintained  the  limits  of  the  inser- 
tion in  its  omission.  It  does  not,  however,  appear  improbable  that 
V.  20  may  have  stood  in  the  original  text  after  v.  13  to  emphasize 
the  question.  Dillmann  explains  the  LXX  omission  as  due  to  distaste 
for  the  enumeration  of  these  strange  valuables  or  to  the  presence  of 
signs  in  the  Hebrew  exemplar  which  indicated  that  the  section  had 
been  added.  The  latter  hypothesis  may  furnish  the  easiest  explana- 
tion of  the  omission,  but  if  the  possibility  of  such  indications  of 
addition  is  admitted  here,  it  could  not  be  excluded  elsewhere,  if 
internal  evidence  were  in  favor  of  it. 

26:5-11. — The  problem  in  26:5-11  is  more  compHcated.  Reuss, 
Siegfried,  Bickell,  Duhm,  and  others  believe  that  the  section  26:5-11 
is  misplaced;  Grill  and  Laue  regard  the  verses  as  part  of  an  inter- 
polation at  this  point.     It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  majority  of  recent 


58  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

critics  believe  there  has  been  radical  readjustment  of  the  text  in 
the  chapters  following  chap.  24.  If  26:5-11  are  omitted  the  connec- 
tion between  26:4  and  26-12  is  not  good,  as  Dillmann  has  remarked. 
But  if  the  verses  after  26:4  should  be  connected  with  25:1-6, 
as  seems  most  probable,  the  Hebrew  exemplar  employed  by  the 
translator  may  have  indicated  such  disorder  of  the  text  or  possibly 
omitted  the  verses  at  this  point.  Without  entering  upon  a  very 
complicated  process  of  rearrangement,  it  may  be  afhrmed  that  the 
LXX  omission  at  this  point  was  probably  motived  by  the  disorder 
and  confusion  of  its  exemplar. 

21 :28-33. — The  omission  of  21 :  28-33  is  more  difficult  of  explana- 
tion. The  connection  would  be  excellent  between  v.  27  and  v.  34, 
and  the  verses  omitted  are  not  essential  to  the  thought.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  are  in  general  harmony  with  the  thought  of  the 
chapter  and  have  neither  the  style  nor  the  character  which  would 
suggest  an  interpolation.  It  may  be  in  this  case  that  the  usual 
explanation  will  suffice  and  that  the  LXX  translator,  perhaps 
because  of  the  boldness  of  the  chapter,  chose  to  omit  a  part  of  it. 

The  omissions  in  chap.  26  and  chap.  28  support  a  belief  that  the 
LXX  testimony  is  to  be  valued  as  evidence  for  an  earlier  form  of 
the  Hebrew  text.  That  a  larger  proportion  of  such  late  interpola- 
tions is  found  in  the  EHhu  Speeches  than  in  the  remainder  of  the  poem 
is  not  strange.  Elihu  appeared  to  later  Jewish  readers  the  hero  of  the 
poem;  he  answered  Job  when  the  friends  had  failed.  His  more 
commonplace  theory  appealed  to  the  mind  of  the  ordinary  reader  and 
afforded  a  point  of  contact  for  additions,  while  the  poorer  style  and 
looser  construction  of  the  chapters  made  it  easier  to  supplement  them. 

More  than  one  explanation  for  the  testimony  of  the  LXX  to  these 
insertions  is  possible. 

1.  There  is  the  possibility  which  Dillmann  has  suggested  that  the 
LXX  translator  used  an  exemplar  with  indications  of  addition  or 
disorder.  This  hypothesis  is  plausible  in  the  case  of  28:14-19  and 
26:5-11.  It  is  less  satisfactory  as  an  explanation  for  the  inserted 
Psahn  of  the  Rainstorm  or  the  omission  in  36:76-17,  where  the  inter- 
weaving of  the  texts  is  more  complicated. 

2.  The  insertions  might  have  been  made  in  certain  Hebrew 
exemplars  before  the  time  of  the  LXX  translation  but  not  have  been 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  59 

contained  in  the  copy  used  by  the  LXX  translator.  When  Theodo- 
tion  made  his  translation  they  had  found  their  way  into  all  of  the 
Hebrew  texts. 

3.  The  third  possibility  is  that  the  additions  were  made  to  the 
Hebrew  text  after  the  time  of  the  first  LXX  translation. 

The  probability  of  the  last  hypothesis  would  be  largely  affected 
by  the  dating  of  the  LXX  translation  of  Job.  This  question  is  an 
important  one  and  has  received  considerable  attention  from  scholars. 
The  present  discussion  can  do  no  more  than  suggest  a  possible  date 
and  some  arguments  to  support  it. 

Graetz^  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  Greek  translation  of  Job 
belonged  to  the  first  century  a.d.  and  was  no  other  than  the  transla- 
tion condemned  by  Rabbi  Gamaliel  I  (cf.  Bab.  Talmud  Sab.  lloa). 
This  translation  has  usually  been  regarded  by  scholars  as  a  Targum 
to  Job  and  it  is  far  more  probable  that  such  was  the  nature  of  the 
translation,  since  Targumim  on  the  Hagiographa  were  forbidden.- 
The  passage  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  reads  plainly  2T^^  "^SD 
Dlrpri  a  phrase  which  would  hardly  be  used  of  a  Greek  translation. 
Though  the  present  Targum  can  hardly  be  the  one  referred  to — 
Bacher  dates  it  about  476 — the  numerous  duplicate  translations 
found  in  it  may  possibly  suggest  that  another  had  already  been  in 
existence.  Bacher  surmises  that  the  forbidden  Targum  on  Job 
may  have  come  from  the  hand  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  who  was 
supposed  to  have  composed  that  on  the  prophets. 

Noldeke,^  in  a  review  of  Bickell's  early  work  on  the  LXX  trans- 
lation of  Job,  fixes  the  terminus  ad  quern  for  the  work  at  150  B.C. 
He  bases  his  conclusion  on  the  witness  of  the  fragment  of  Aristeas 
Tlepl  'lovSauov  found  in  Eusebius.  The  outline  of  Job's  history 
is  there  related,  substantially  as  in  the  bibhcal  narrative.  Job  is, 
however,  identified  with  Jobab  (Gen.  36:33)  and  thus  made  a 
descendant  of  Esau.  The  titles  of  the  friends  also  appear  as  they 
do  in  the  LXX  supplement  (42:17)  though  Elihu  is  here  named 
with  them. 

This  supplement  is  almost  certainly  a  later  addition  to  the  original 

^  Monatsschrift  G.W.J.  (1877),  p.  83. 

^  Cf .  Bacher,  art.  "Targum"  in  Jew.  Enc. 

s  Gott.  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  (1865),  p.  579 


60  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

LXX  translation,  and  Freudenthal^  believes  the  material  for  it  was 
derived  from  Aristeas '  history.  It  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  Aristeas 
knew  the  Greek  translation  of  the  poem  proper.  Noldeke,  in  the 
belief  that  Aristeas  also  drew  from  the  later  supplement  to  the  LXX, 
maintained  that  the  translation  of  the  book  into  Greek  must  have 
taken  place  before  150  b.c.  If  Freudenthal's  opposite  view  is 
accepted,  the  evidence  would  only  prove  that  the  Greek  transla- 
tion of  Job  was  in  existence  some  time  before  100  b.c. 

The  earlier  date,  favored  by  Noldeke,  has  much  in  its  favor. 
The  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Prophets  had  been 
accomplished  before  150  b.c.  Though  the  Hagiographa  were  held 
in  less  esteem  and  would  be  translated  later,  the  statement  in  the 
Prologue  of  the  younger  Sira  certainly  implies  that  he  knew  a  Greek 
form  of  some  of  the  Hagiographa.  The  date  of  this  prologue  can 
be  assigned  with  some  certainty  to  the  year  132  b.c,  and  if  Job  was 
among  the  books  referred  to,  a  date  considerably  earlier  than  this 
time  would  be  established  for  the  Greek  translation  of  the  poem. 

The  later  books  of  the  Greek  Psalter  are  by  Swete^  assigned  to 
the  second  half  of  the  second  century.  The  Greek  Esther  was 
already  in  circulation  before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Eupole- 
mus,  who  probably  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
makes  use  of  the  Greek  Chronicles.  All  of  these  books  must  have 
been  written  much  later  than  Job,  and  it  seems  justifiable  to  infer 
that  a  translation  of  the  poem  would  have  preceded  them,  since  the 
book  very  probably  found  more  appreciation  among  Hellenists  than 
among  the  Hebrews  themselves. 

The  date  of  the  Greek  translation  of  Job  cannot  be  positively 
fixed,  but  a  strong  probability  that  it  belongs  to  a  time  before  150  B.C. 
is  estabhshed.  If  the  additions  in  34:28-33  and  36:7-17  refer  to 
conditions  at  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philopator  they  could  hardly 
have  been  composed  after  the  time  of  the  first  LXX  translation. 
But  it  is  entirely  possible  that  they  had  not  before  this  time  found 
their  way  into  the  exemplar  employed  by  the  LXX  translator.  If, 
as  is  possible,  they  refer  to  somewhat  later  periods  of  political  stress, 
their  composition  may  have  been  subsequent  to  the  original  Greek 

1  Alex.  Polyhister,  pp.  136-43,  231.  Cf.  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkea 
(3d  ed.),  Ill,  356. 

2  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  pp.  24,  25. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  61 

translation  of  the  poem.  The  Psalm  of  the  Rainstorm  had  probably 
been  in  existence  as  an  independent  psalm  some  time  before  its 
combination  with  the  Elihu  Speeches,  which  may  have  occurred 
after  the  LXX  translation. 

For  the  omissions  in  21:28-33;  26:5-11;  28:14-19  other  explana- 
tions may  be  necessary,  though  28:14-19  might  easily  be  a  late  inser- 
tion; the  verses  contain  nothing  which  a  late  glossator  might  not 
have  written.  The  general  opinion  of  the  writer  concerning  the  other 
two  sections  has  already  been  stated,  and  they  lie  outside  the  limits 
of  this  discussion.  To  suggest  the  possibihty  of  various  explana- 
tions for  these  larger  omissions  of  the  LXX  text  may  seem  too 
complicated  a  solution.  Really  less  credible,  however,  would  be  a 
theory  which  insisted  that  all  of  them,  of  whatever  style  or  char- 
acter, must  have  emanated  from  one  redactor.  Although  it  might 
seem  simplest  to  explain  these  passages  as  arbitrary  omissions  of  the 
LXX  translator,  the  complicated  nature  of  the  evidence  in  several 
cases  is  very  difficult  to  reconcile  with  such  an  explanation. 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  ELIHU  SPEECHES 

The  recognized  inferiority  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  and  their  pecul- 
iarities of  language  have  usually  led  to  the  conclusion  that  they 
belonged  to  a  far  later  period  than  the  poem.  Many  scholars,  as 
Stuhlmann,  Hitzig,  Bleek,  who  have  believed  the  poem  pre-exilic, 
have  assigned  to  Elihu  a  post-exilic  date.  Others,  among  them 
Ewald,  Dillmann,  Duhm,  place  a  century  or  two  between  the  two 
compositions.  The  question  is  usually  left  somewhat  indefinite 
with  the  statement  that  the  Elihu  Speeches  form  a  later  addition. 
Duhm  dates  Job  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  and  Ehhu  a  few 
hundred  years  later.  He  mentions  as  reasons  for  postulating  a  long 
interval  of  time  between  the  two  compositions,  the  more  developed 
conceptions  of  the  physical  universe  in  Elihu,  a  later  form  of  angel- 
ology,  and  a  probable  reference  to  the  Chronicler's  tales  of  Manasseh 
and  those  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Daniel. 

The  first  of  these  arguments  rests  on  somewhat  insufficient  evi- 
dence. The  description  of  natural  wonders  in  chaps.  36,  37  is  far 
less  vivid,  less  figurative — in  a  word  less  poetic  than  the  Yahweh 
Speeches,  but  that  it  shows  any  real  change  of  attitude,  any  develop- 


62  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

ment  of  scientific  knowledge,  is  difficult  to  discern.  Chief  stress  is 
laid  on  36:27,  28  in  which  the  author  supposedly  states  that  the 
water  is  drawn  up  from  the  earth  and  distilled  as  rain.  Even  in  its 
present  form  the  text  must  be  a  little  strained  to  give  this  meaning,  and 
neither  the  LXX  nor  the  Syriac  supports  the  rendering.  What  should 
be  read  in  vv.  27,  28  is  as  follows  (cf .  LXX  and  notes  on  the  text) : 

27a  He  restraineth  the  drops  of  the  water, 

28&  Makes  his  cloud  to  o'ershadow  many  men. 

276  He  poureth  out  the  rain  as  His  mist, 

28a  Which  the  skies  drop  down  from  above. 

As  a  previous  section  of  this  discussion  has  attempted  to  prove, 
these  verses  are  composite ;  the  text  is  slightly  corrupt  and  the  entire 
Psalm  of  the  Rainstorm  must  be  recognized  as  an  insertion.  In  the 
verses  which  are  Elihu's,  God's  immediate  activity  in  Nature  and 
the  mystery  of  his  works  seems  recognized  as  in  the  Yahweh  Speeches, 
though  expressed  in  tamer  language. 

The  significance  of  the  angelology  of  Elihu  can  at  least  be  over- 
emphasized. The  phrase  "the  death  bringers"  in  33:22  is  almost 
certainly  a  misreading,  as  shown  by  the  versions  (cf .  note  on  33 :  22) . 
With  Eichhorn  among  older  critics,  Volck,  Knabenbauer,  and 
Genung  of  the  later,  we  believe  that  in  the  much-quoted  passage 
33:23  Ehhu  is  referring  to  himself  as  the  "interpreter."  But  even 
though  TjJsb"-  "angel"  be  retained,  it  is  hardly  justifiable  to  assume 
a  much  later  date  than  that  of  the  original  poem  on  this  evidence. 
Eliphaz  in  5:1  has  mentioned  the  "holy  ones"  upon  whom  Job 
might  call.  No  great  lapse  of  time  is  needed  to  account  for  the 
similar  conception  in  33:23,  if  indeed  a  supernatural  agent  be  sug- 
gested by  the  passage. 

A  reference  to  the  stories  of  Manasseh  (II  Chron.  33 :  10  f .)  and 
Nebuchadnezzar,  which  Duhm  finds  in  36:7  f.,  is  at  best  very  uncer- 
tain, and  these  verses  are  among  those  which  the  LXX  did  not  read. 
For  their  allusions  to  royal  personages  another  explanation,  already 
suggested,  seems  at  least  equally  probable.  These  arguments,  then, 
are  insufficient  to  establish  a  long  period  of  time  between  Job  and 
its  "first  theological  criticism."  Other  criteria  of  greater  signifi- 
cance are  those  of  the  language  and  the  religious  attitude. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  63 

The  relation  of  Elihu's  teaching  to  that  of  the  friends  has  already 
been  discussed.  Though  the  conception  was  not  strange  to  the 
poet,  it  may,  perhaps,  have  found  a  more  sympathetic  response 
in  a  later  time  and  been  further  developed  in  the  Ehhu  Speeches. 
Yet  another  writer,  very  soon  after  the  writing  of  the  poem,  might 
have  seized  upon  this  special  aspect  of  the  problem  which  he  felt 
was  essential,  and  added  it.  The  thought  in  itself  need  not  indicate 
a  much  later  development. 

A  very  marked  piety  and  excessive  reverence,  which  characterize 
Elihu,  would  be  not  less  explainable  in  a  writer  of  the  period  after 
the  P  document  than  in  one  of  a  considerably  later  stage  of  Judaism. 
If  Job  is  dated  after  Ezra,  an  attitude  like  that  of  Job's  author  and 
one  like  that  of  Ehhu's  are  both  perfectly  possible.  The  two  currents 
of  thought — the  bold,  questioning  tone  of  Job  and  a  very  devout, 
conventional  piety — must  have  flourished  side  by  side  in  the 
century  after  Ezra.  Not  all  the  Wise  Men  of  Israel  were  so  untram- 
meled  and  so  daring  as  the  poet  of  Job. 

The  witness  of  the  language  is  more  difficult  to  estimate.  The 
larger  proportion  of  Aramaisms  in  these  chapters  and  the  use  of 
some  few  forms  found  only  here  have  been  discussed  in  a  previous 
section  of  the  introduction.  These  differences  and  the  general 
usage  of  the  writer  stamp  him  as  another  than  the  original  poet,  but 
Budde's  investigations  show  that  the  character  of  the  diction  is  not 
radically  different.  The  difference,  in  other  words,  cannot  be  suffi- 
cient to  estabhsh  a  long  interval  between  the  two.  Certain  stock 
phrases  of  the  Wisdom  vocabulary  more  common  in  Proverbs  than 
in  Job  appear  more  frequently  in  these  chapters,  e.g.,  n>'n(3'"l)  IC" 
DlDH .  This  might  be  indicative  of  a  somewhat  later  date  or  only 
of  the  use  of  a  more  commonplace,  stereotyped  vocabulary.  Wisdom 
represents  with  Ehhu  essentially  what  it  represents  in  the  poem. 
It  is  definitely  a  possession  of  the  Wise  Man  and  is  not  regarded  as 
an  independent  and  personified  attribute.  There  is  no  trace  of 
Greek  influence  in  Elihu's  thinking  such  as  appears  in  Ben  Sira. 

The  speeches  in  spite  of  their  peculiar  diction  show  no  such 
admixture  of  New-Hebrew  forms,  Aramaic  constructions,  and  foreign 
words  as  do  Ecclesiastes  and  Ben  Sira.  There  is  perhaps  a  slight 
tendency  to  employ  unusual  Hiphils,  which  is  very  marked  in  Ben 


64  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

Sira.  In  general,  however,  the  diction  of  these  chapters  stands  in 
far  closer  relationship  to  that  of  Job  than  to  the  late  decadent 
Hebrew  of  Ecclesiastes  and  Ben  Sira.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
EUhu's  favorite  phrase,  "ICTJ  "chastisement,"  has  come  to  mean 
in  Sira  "politeness,"  Lehensart. 

The  characteristics  of  Elihu,  then,  in  language  and  type  of  thought, 
do  not  necessitate  a  date  far  removed  from  that  of  the  poem. 
Kuenen  has  declared  that  the  difference  in  age  between  the  poem 
and  its  chief  insertion  is  not  sufficient  to  be  determined.  He  believes 
the  author  of  Elihu,  though  an  inferior  poet,  may  even  have  been 
a  contemporary  of  the  original  author. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  most  natural  supposition  is  that  this 
supplement  was  added  to  the  poem  while  it  was  still  comparatively 
unknown.  The  book  would  hardly  have  circulated  long  in  rehgious 
circles  without  some  such  addition.  While  the  reaction  against  its 
daring  was  still  strong  and  before  its  position  through  age  and  long 
use  had  become  more  assured,  would  be  the  most  probable  time  for 
the  addition  of  such  a  corrective  supplement.  Later  interpolators 
would  be  more  likely  to  attempt  to  soften  Job's  words,  to  bring  him 
to  repentance — in  short  to  make  more  understandable  his  final 
justification  by  Yahweh.  This  is  essentially  the  opinion  of 
Hoffmann  and  Laue,  who  affirm  that  the  general  working  over 
of  the  poem  from  chap.  24,  which  allowed  Job  to  find  the  solution 
for  himself,  was  not  in  the  book  when  the  Elihu  sections  were 
added.  There  was,  therefore,  more  reason  for  such  a  corrective 
addition  than  the  poem  in  its  present  form  offers.  Chap.  28  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Job  renders  the  Elihu  speeches  quite  superfluous. 

But  some  time  for  this  process  must  be  allowed.  The  LXX 
translators  had  the  text  of  the  poem  with  these  chief  insertions 
before  them.  Ben  Sira  almost  certainly  knew  the  poem  with  the 
Elihu  Speeches  and  chap.  28.  He  undoubtedly  employs  chap.  28 
(cf.  Sira  1)  and  in  18:13,  14  we  believe  there  is  an  allusion  to  Elihu's 
redemptive  theory,  developed  in  33:17-26.  No  tradition  of  the 
book  has  come  down  to  us  without  the  Elihu  Speeches. 

No  distinction  has  been  made,  up  to  this  point,  between  the  two 
authors  of  the  speeches.  They  cannot  have  been  separated  by  a  long 
period,  though  representing  two  different  points  of  view  regarding 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  65 

the  earlier  book.  One  critic  had  a  special  and  comparatively  fresh 
theory  to  propound,  the  other  harked  back  to  the  retribution 
teaching  of  the  friends.  The  opinion  has  been  already  expressed 
that  the  first  is  the  earlier  and  that  chap.  34  may  have  been  written 
at  a  sHghtly  later  date.  But  it  would  be  futile  to  attempt  closer 
distinctions. 

The  most  probable  hypothesis,  then,  is  that  the  Elihu  Speeches 
represent  a  combination  of  a  criticism  and  a  supplement  of  the  Job 
poem  written  by  two  Wise  Men  of  the  first  or,  at  latest,  the  second 
generation  after  the  daring  poet.  To  their  well-meant  efforts  we 
no  doubt  owe  the  preservation  of  the  poem. 

Something  should  be  said  of  the  character  who  has  given  a  name 
to  the  sections.  His  name,  unlike  those  of  the  friends,  is  symbolic; 
Elihu,  the  son  of  Barachel,  is  a  true  Hebrew  name — EUhu  meaning 
"My  God  it  is"  and  Barachel  "God  blesses"  or  "Bless  God." 
The  former  name  is  found  once  in  I  Sam.  1,  among  the  ancestors  of 
Samuel,  and  three  times  in  Chronicles  (I  Chron.  12:20;  26:7; 
27:18),  which  probably  indicates  a  preference  for  the  name  in  post- 
exilic  times.  Barachel  occurs  nowhere  else,  though  very  like  the 
frequent  ir(''j"i3  .  The  theory  that  the  author  chose  this  oppor- 
tunity to  immortalize  his  own  name  is  very  doubtful  in  view  of  the 
character  of  the  names  and  Hebrew  literary  traditions.  Budde  is 
probably  right  in  suggesting  that  the  names  are  chosen  with  reference 
to  the  character  of  the  speeches. 

The  tribal  designation  "the  Buzite"  suggests  the  mention  of 
Buz  (Gen.  22:21),  the  son  of  Nahor  and  brother  of  Uz.  This  con- 
nection with  the  name  of  Job's  supposed  ancestor  probably  explains 
the  choice  of  the  title.  In  vv.  2-5  of  the  prose  introduction,  added 
by  the  combiner,  one  more  designation  is  found — "of  the  tribe  of 
Ram."  The  suggestion  has  already  been  offered  that  this  might 
represent  a  fragment  of  the  original  title  of  the  second  Wise  Man. 
Ram  is  found  elsewhere  in  a  genealogical  table  (I  Chron.  2:9,  25,  27) 
as  the  name  of  a  brother  or  son  of  Jerachmeel,  an  ancestor  of  David. 

Hoffmann  observes  that  the  phrase  niri3";2J'J  TlQ  "contempt  of 
famiUes"  occurs  in  31:34  and  believes  that  it  suggested  a  play  on 
the  phrase  employing  D"l  "exalted."     The  Buzite  with  this  inter- 


66  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

pretation  would  signify  "the  despised."  Budde  is  inclined  to  accept 
the  explanation  but  it  appears  somewhat  fanciful.  The  Syriac 
translators  render  "of  the  tribe  of  Remmon, "  and  the  Targum  reads, 
"from  the  family  of  Abraham."  In  the  LXX  we  find  added  "from 
the  land  of  Ausitis." 

We  may  probably  conclude  that  the  introduction  gives  us  nothing 
of  significance  beyond  a  suggestion  of  the  purpose  of  Elihu's  author. 

TEXT  OF  THE  ELIHU  SPEECHES 

Chap.  32 
Vv.  2-5.     Prose  Introduction  of  the  Editor 

2.  Then  the  anger  of  Elihu,  son  of  Barachel,  the  Buzite,  of  the  tribe 
of  Ram,  was  kindled;  against  Job  his  wrath  was  kindled,  because  be  justi- 
fied himself  rather  than  God. 

3.  And  against  his  three  friends  was  his  wrath  kindled,  because  they 
had  not  found  an  answer  and  condemned  Job. 

4.  But  Elihu  waited  while  they  were  speaking  with  Job,  for  they  were 
older  than  he. 

5.  And  Elihu  saw  that  there  was  no  answer  in  the  mouth  of  these  three 
men  and  his  anger  was  kindled. 

2.  Vv.  2-5  form  an  awkward  summary  of  Elihu's  introduction  in  vv.  1, 
6-10,  18-22  and  of  the  introduction  to  chap.  34  found  in  chap.  32,  vv.  11-16. 
Hoff.  Budde  omit  vv.  2-5  as  redactional.  n~\  nrjDTUIQ'O  Syr.  "of  Remmen," 
Tar.  "of  Abraham."     Sym.  'LvpLas. 

3.  MT  ny^-iJI^I  LXX  MS  23  S<=<=  A*  Syr.  Hex.  (marg.)  rd.  probably 
np'^nS"'"!,  MT  nT'STlX.  in  Jewish  tradition  this  is  one  of  18  Tiqqun 
Sopherim  for  DTlbXH  (so  MS  Ken.  683).  But  Hit.  notes  that  Ibn  Ezra  did 
not  share  Jewish  opinion. 

4.  MT  CnZl"?  D1''S{  nS  riDH  gives  an  impossible  construction.  LXX 
Vet.  Lat  "to  give  answer,"  Sym.  Syr.  HSri,  Hit.  "^yi  before  DT'X,  Duhm 
n'lTlJnb  before  nX  .  Trsp.  probably  and  rd!  with  Wr.  Budde  nT^X  nX  0^313. 
LXX  Sah.  om.  vv.  46-5  as  superfluous. 

THE  ORIGINAL  ELIHU  SPEECHES 
Chap.  32 

1.  Now  these  three  men  ceased  to  answer  Job,  because  he  was  righteous 
in  their  eyes. 

1.  MT  D-'C35<n  nobCJ ;  LXX  l^yn  nCbO ;  MT  Tar.  Vul.  IT^n .  Rd. 
probably  with  MS  Ken.  248,  LXX  Sym.  Syr.  Hex.  (marg.)  Dn-^2'iy3 .  The 
verse  was  probably  altered  to  accord  with  vv.  2-5.  Note  that  the  prose  has 
poetical  accentuation  here. 

2.  Vv.  2-5  are  omitted  here  as  work  of  compiler.     Hoflf.  and  Budde  omit. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  67 

6.  And  Elihu,  son  of  Barachel,  the  Buzite,  answered  and  said: 

Few  yet  of  days  am  I, 
And  ye  now  are  elders; 
Wherefore  I  shrank  and  was  fearful 
To  shew  unto  you  my  knowledge. 

7.  For  I  said,  It  is  days  that  should  speak, 
And  abundance  of  years  show  forth  wisdom. 

8.  Yet  the  spirit  of  God  is  in  man, 

And  the  breath  of  the  Lord  giveth  knowledge. 

9.  The  many  of  days  know  not  wisdom, 
The  elders  discern  not  judgment. 

10.  Wherefore  I  said.  Hark  to  me; 

I  will  show  you,  yea  I,  of  my  knowledge. 

18.  For  I  with  words  am  o'erfiUed; 
The  spirit  within  me  constrains  me. 

19.  Like  to  wine  without  vent  is  my  bosom. 
Like  to  flasks  of  new  wine  is  it  bursting. 

6.  Prevailing  meter  is  resumed.  Line  b  of  second  couplet  lacks  an  accent. 
Bi.  before  D^tJittJi  adds  D'^niU;  Ley  before  it  D'^DpTT  or  before  T^yS  an 
•^mUS^,  Duhm  Ud^D  which  has  fallen  out  before  p  by.  MT  ''nbnT"fear" 
here  only.  (Cf .  Aram,  bm .)  Probably  from  Ar.  briT  "  shrink."  (Cf.  B.  D.  B.) 
mn  Aram.  =  l^rn  32:10, 17,  with  71  15:17;  36:2;  Ps.  19:3  only,  n  Elihu 
only,  32:10,17;  36:3;  Plu.  37:16  =  n^l .     MT  D?nX  .     Budde,  Beer  suggest 

DDns.  ■  '  ■  '      ' 

'  '7.  Cf.  12:12;  MT  ly^l^ ;  Bi.  y^T".     Note  plural  vb.  with  n"!  in  15:20. 

8.  MT  i<in  m-| .  Rd.  for  parallelism  with  Sym.  bs  mi .  So  Bi.  Budde. 
Cf.  use  27:3;  33:4;  34: 14;  Isa.  42:5.  Perhaps  it  was  changed  because  of  later 
dislike  of  the  suggestion.  Duhm  TCiDN  T^Xn  HI"! ;  cf.  Ps.  119:130.  pX  here 
only  in  Job. 

9.  MT  n"'m  "the  great."  Rd.  with  LXX  Sah.  Vet.  Lat.  Syr.  Vul. 
D'^'O"'  3"1, — so  Duhm,  Beer.  MT  is  probably  a  scribal  error.  The  change 
improves  parallelism  and  meter.  Budde  □'^211?  (cf.  15:10).  Bi.  inserts  ''S 
before  v.  9. 

10.  MT  ny^ir ;  2  MSS  LXX,  Syr.  Vul.  17)3115 .  So  Hit.  V.  106  =  v.  176; 
V.  10a  is  similar  to  v.  17a.  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  vv.  15-17  after  v.  9  omit  v.  10  as 
var.  of  V.  17.  Duhm  retains  pb  for  v.  15.  Budde  reads  vv.  13, 14  before  v.  10, 
omits  vv.  11,  12,  15,  17.  Bi.  omits  vv.  12,  15,  16,  17.  Hatch  omits  vv.  11-17. 
The  LXX  omitted  vv.  lie,  12,  15,  16.  Vv.  11-16  are  read  in  this  text  as  an 
introduction  before  chap.  34.     V.  17  is  a  duplicate  of  v.  10. 

18.  MT  13 ;  Duhm  "^DS?  "'D .  Beer  suggests  "'DDii ,  18a  is  over  short. 
Kethib  Tlbp  Qere, 20  MSS  ''nsbp .  ^rjl ,  lit.  " belly  "  (B.D.B.),  Eng.  "bosom." 
Cf.  15:2,  35.  riTI  "spirit,"  used  as  in  v.  8,  not  "breath."  Bi.  inserts  before 
V.  18,  with  LXX  of  v.  17,  n:yX  my  ;  begins  line  6  with  D^bia . 

19.  MT  n^Ti  before  v.  19.  '  Perhaps  om.  with  LXX  Vet.  Lat.  for  sake 
of  meter.  Bi.  Beer  rd.  ]n .  MT  ni3N .  The  word  is  used  only  here  in  this 
sense,  elsewhere  "necromancer."  MT  ypl"'.  Rd.  probably  with  Duhm, 
Beer,  yp^D, —  scribal  error  influenced  by  preceding  verb. 


68  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

20.  I  will  speak  then  that  I  may  find  ease; 
I  will  open  my  lips  and  will  answer. 

21.  Let  me  not  'fore  a  mortal  pay  reverence; 
Unto  men  let  me  not  give  fair  titles. 

22.  For  I  know  not  how  I  should  speak  thus, 
Right  soon  would  my  Maker  destroy  me. 

Chap.  33 

1.  But  hearken  now,  Job,  to  my  speech, 
Unto  all  of  my  words  give  thou  ear. 

2.  For  lo,  I  have  opened  my  hps; 

My  tongue  in  my  mouth  giveth  utterance. 

3.  Upright  as  my  heart  are  my  words. 

The  knowledge  of  my  lips  speak  they  purely. 

4.  'Tis  the  spirit  of  God  which  hath  made  me; 
The  breath  of  the  Lord  hath  life  given. 

5.  If  thou  canst,  give  me  answer  in  this; 
Set  thy  cause  now  before  me,  stand  forth. 

6.  See  I,  before  God,  am  as  thou; 
From  clay  was  I  fashioned,  I  also. 

20.  mi'^l,  lit.  "be  wide,"  I  Sam.  16:23;  Jer.  22: li,  "find  air,"  "be  re- 
freshed"; rare  in  impersonal  use. 

21.  MT  CIX  bsi  proposed  (Kit.  ed.)  bs?  DXT.  D^ZD  ««]  ,  lit.  "respect 
the  person  of."  HIDi?  "betitle,"  elsewhere  only  Isa.  44:5;  45:4;  of.  with  v.  21 
chap.  13: 8,  10,  11. 

22.  MT  n;25<  as  in  v.  21.  Vul.  reads  perhaps  ')''2i|!  "abide,"  "be  firm." 
t:y^D  "soon":  of.  Ps.  81:14.     ^'.Wy  "my  Maker."     Cf.  4:17;  35:10. 

33:1.  Job  is  here  for  the  first  time  addressed  by  name.  DbiS  is  charac- 
teristic of  Job  2:5;  5:8;  13:3;  12:7;  14:18;  17:10,  etc. 

2.  "12  and  "^DH,  lit.  "mouth"  and  "palate."  Cf.  for  usage  6:30;  29:10; 
31: 30.     Bi.  omits  v.  2,  Budde  reads  it  as  Vordersatz  to  v.  3. 

3.  V.  3a,  lit.  "  The  uprightness  of  my  heart  are  my  words."  Cf .  Prov.  8: 6-8. 
Rd.  as  Budde  suggests,  TlSiC  as  subject  of  ibb'O  and  Gen.  after  n^".  MTnO^, 
Beer  TCn*^  (Ps.  45:2),  Duhm  ptJ^  (Joel  2:24),  "Mein  Herz  stromt  uber  von 
Worten  der  Erkenntnis."  MT  'mi  ini2X,  Wr.  ITSX ,  Duhm,  Beer  "^l.^aX 
nn,  Syr.  om.  n^"! .  MT  mns  is  pass.  pt.  used  adverbially.  Cf.  Zeph.  3:9. 
The  vb.  /S^  is  found  in  8:2  and  elsewhere  only  twice  in  the  O.T.,  an  Aramaism. 

4.  Om.  V.  4  as  var.  of  32:8;  33:6;  bo  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer.  LXX,  v.  46  = 
32:86.  The  verse  is  certainly  misplaced;  if  genuine  rd.  after  v.  6.  Bi.  adds 
■^SS  Da  after  ■':niC3? ;  Syr.  rd.  ^ZrmyS . 

5.  Rd.  with  LXX,  Vet.  Lat.  after  v.  5a  TK"? .  This  improves  sentence 
structure  and  meter.  Syr.  rd.  apparently  IZl'l  ;  Ley  with  Syr.  or  riST"5y, 
Duhm  n^lSt .  Duhm  adds  '(■^'"'0  after  HDi;?  .  n^STH,  this  vb.  is  used  only 
in  Hithpael.     For  use  here  cf.  I  Sam.  17:16.     Cf.  v.  with  13:18;  23:4. 

6.  For  vv.  6,  7  cf.  9:34;  13:20,  21;  23:6.    MT  5«b,   Sym.  bx  S'5.    Beer 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  69 

7.  My  fear,  it  shall  not  dismay  thee, 
My  hand  be  not  heavy  upon  thee. 

8.  Howbeit,  thou  hast  said  in  mine  ears, 
Yea  the  voice  of  thy  words  I  have  heard : 

9.  "Pure  am  I,  free  from  offense; 
Clean,  and  in  me  is  no  sin, 

10.  Lo,  He  findeth  occasions  against  me 
For  His  foe  hath  He  me  accounted; 

11.  He  setteth  my  feet  as  in  stocks. 
And  all  of  my  goings  He  watcheth." 

12.  I  answer,  in  this  thou  art  not  just; 
For  God  is  mightier  far  than  mortals. 

13.  Wherefore  then  striv'st  thou  with  him  ? 
Unto  all  thy  words  shall  he  not  answer. 

14.  For  once  speaketh  God  with  a  man, 
And  yet  twice  he  turneth  not  from  him. 

suggests  the  reading  of  Sym.  ^tlS'lp  ,  lit.  "nip  off."  The  vb.  is  used  only  in 
Ps.  35:19;  Prov.  6:13;  10:10;  16:30.  "Tan  "clay"  is  mentioned  as  the  material 
from  which  man  was  made,  Job  4:19;  10:9. 

7.  MT  "^SDN  "pressure,"  here  only.  Rd.  rather  with  LXX  "^BDn.  So 
01s.  Hit.  Wr.  Hoff.  Sieg.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer.  Cf.9:336;  13:21&.  Rd.  prob- 
ably also  as  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer  to  agree  with  "^SD,  "inDin .  Bi.  omits  ikb  in 
line  b  for  the  sake  of  meter. 

8.  LXX  omits  v.  8a  as  unnecessary;  it  is  supplied  from  Theo.  MT  )''b'Q  . 
Rd.  with  LXX  XA,  Syr.  Tar.  Vul.  7\'^b'Q ,  which  is  better  in  the  context.  So 
Bi.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer. 

9.  MT  win .  Many  MSS  have  small  H  which  by  tradition  implies  that 
Elihu  did  not  consider  Job  "clean."  The  word  is  an  Aramaism,  found  only 
here.     MT  ^D2i? ,  Bi.  '»;X ,  in  9&. 

10.  MT  p,  Beer  Nini,  MT  DnS^Dri,  "oppositions,"  is  used  only  in  Num. 
14:34.  Rd.  with  Baeth.  Wr.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer,  niDX^n  (Sing.  Jd.  14:4, 
and  denominative  of  nSXnn  ,  II  Kings  5: 7).  This  gives  meaning  required  by 
context.    Cf.  10:13-17;  13:246-27;  19:11. 

11.  Line  a  =  13: 27a.  Bi.  Duhm,  Beer  om.  v.  11  as  var.  of  13:27.  Om. 
rather  13:27&  as  supplied  from  v.  11.  HD,  only  here  and  13:27,  is  probably 
loan  word  from  Aram.  S'^D . 

12.  It  is  possible  and  very  attractive  to  read  v.  12a  with  LXX  and  Vet. 
Lat.  niyx  Xbl  '^npnar  nS?T  '^n  "Lo,  righteous  I  am,  but  he  answereth  me 
not."  Cf.9:2f.,32.  Beer,  n?yX  sbl  ^npi22  n^5?n  T^n  ;  Bi.  "^DD?^  X^T  TipyS 
(cf.  19:7;  30:20);  Duhm,  HDJ?' Xb  pyiSS  Di5  HSH ;  MT  Hin^ ;  Duhm  (after 
LXX?),  D''by'a;  (Hiph.  Pt.  of  obr,  as  Ps.  10:1),  "Es  verbirgt  sich  Eloah  vor 
den  Menschen."  T^D.'^  in  this  comparative  sense  is  without  parallel.  (Cf.  B.  D.  B.) 

13.  MT  T"im.  Rd.  with  Vul.  T^inn.  So  Dill.  Hit.  Sieg.  Budde;  this 
sense  is  required  by  context.  Bi.  Beer,  Duhm,  "^^^T ;  Bi.  Duhm  rd.  "^D  as  an 
introduction  to  direct  discourse. 

14.  MT  ns'l^TlJ"^,  which  is  not  supported  by  any  version.     Rd.  probably 


70  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

15.  In  a  dream,  in  the  visions  of  night, 

On  his  couch,  when  he  lieth  in  slumber. 

16.  Then  openeth  He  the  ear  of  man. 
With  fearful  forms  He  frighteth  him. 

17.  To  turn  a  man  from  his  way, 

To  cause  him  to  cease  from  his  pride. 

18.  His  soul  He  draws  back  from  destruction, 
His  life,  that  it  pass  not  to  Sheol. 

19.  He  is  chastened  with  pain  on  his  couch. 
Ceaseless  through  all  of  his  members; 

with  Sym.  TIC^  or  n31|'.''D'^  (cf.  LXX  translation  in  Prov.  5:7),  which  gives 
meaning  required.  God  does  speak  more  than  once.  Bi.  ni'l^TU'^. ;  Sieg. 
Budde,  nsn^TCn;  Beer  with  Syr.  Vul.  (repeftf),  n:TS"',  orwithDuhm  n3n"'T»i; 
LXX  omits  the  verse  after  X5  as  superfluous.    For  form  of  expression  cf.  5:19. 

15.  Line  b  =  4:1.36,  "When  sleep  falleth  upon  men."  But  the  verse  here 
is  overloaded:  probably  om.  b  as  an  insertion  from  4:13.  So  Bi.  Budde,  Beer, 
Duhm.  LXX  261  omits.  Rd.  n  before  )V:r\  with  6  MSS  LXX,  Syr.  Vul. 
So  Beer.  riTQIirD ,  lit.  "  in  slumbers,"  is  a  late  Wisdom  word  found  Prov.  6:4; 
6:10;  24:33;  and  Ps.  132:4  only. 

16.  V.  16a  employs  a  form  of  expression  used  here  and  in  36:10, 15  to  sug- 
gest the  Divine  revelation  (cf.  I  Sam.  9:15).  MT,  nno^ni ;  Hoflf.  Budde, 
DnC^mi.;  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  with  LXX  Vet.  Lat.  D^ni'cil^  (=n'^Sn'T52  Deut. 
4:34),  "terrors,"  LXX,  iv  ftSeaiv  (f)b^ov  tolovtols.  Rd.  therefore  better  with  LXX 
D'''^1^  ''Xn'OB ;  this  gives  necessary  length  to  the  line  and  a  better  reading. 
The  similarity  of  the  two  successive  words  caused  confusion  possibly  and 
DICQ  was  an  easy  conjecture.  MT,  DPn\  point  with  LXX  A.  Vet.  Lat. 
Syr.  CPn^ .  So  Bi.  Wr.  Hoff.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer;  Dhn'^  is  not  in  place  in 
the  passage.     Cf.  7:14-16. 

17.  MT  nt5r^.  Rd.  rather  with  Syr.  (Vul.?)  ^nir^BT?  as  01s.  Dill.  Sieg. 
Budde.  nipy'Q^'Hir.  Del.  Hit.  Th^;S1Z  rd.  by  Bi.  Duhm  with  LXX,  Beer 
p«712  or  yipSl?.  MT  nn?  "pride,"  Aram.  Job  22:29;  Jer.  3:17;  LXX  Vet. 
Lat.  rd.  n'lS':'-inTr^  n'l^V  So  Beer  with  n2r£^  Syr.  also  "ij. .  MT  nDS") 
"he  covers"  is  not  appropriate  in  context.  Rd.  with  Dill.  Budde,  Duhm, 
rhT,  Bi.  nED";  (Isa.  33:12;  Pe.  80:17),  Sieg.  ^D^  Bi.  also  transposes  TCnb 
and  'tjirni  in  v.  18. 

18.  r\'^T\,  usual  meaning  "animal,"  Elihu  33:18,20,22,28;  36:14;  "life,' 
also  Ps.  74:19;  78:50,  etc.  Elsewhere  in  Job  n"'''n  is  used.  MT,  nbtCS,  "by 
the  sword,"  does  not  give  a  probable  meaning  here.  Cf.  v.  28,  Rd.  probably 
with  Duhm  (Syr.  XnnX)  nbktj? ,  better  parallel  with  18a. 

19.  MT  nD^nl .  The  Perf.  is  not  good  here.  Rd.  probably  HDI"''! ,  LXX 
Syr.^3n3'l\  Beer 'IsnDi'i  IK,  Duhm  HD';  D^,  Budde  HD^i  Kim.  MT'mSD'a, 
"pain,"  in  Elihu  Speeches;  elsewhere  in  Job  DSD  is  used.  MT  IDDlTia  :  Beer 
omits  suflf.  with  LXX,  Vul.  MT,  lini ,  Occ.  Kethib.  Rd.  nini  with  Occ. 
Qere,  Or.  Theo.  Sym.  Targ.  Vul.  cf.  4:14."  Dill.  Duhm,  rd.  Qere;  Budde,  Hoff.- 
Kethiv;  Sieg.  nXDI ;  Beer  np.n^  (cf.  Hb.  3:16;  Prov.  12:4).  Possibly  rd.  mi. 
n  might  easily  have  been  dropped  before  the  two  similar  letters.     This  would 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  71 

20.  Loathsome  is  meat  to  his  soul, 
And  the  food  of  desire  to  his  spirit; 

21.  His  flesh  is  wasted  away; 

His  bones  are  laid  bare  to  men's  sight; 

22.  His  soul  draweth  near  to  destruction, 
And  his  life  cometh  nigh  unto  death. 

23.  If  there  be  an  interpreter  for  him. 
One  from  among  a  thousand. 

To  make  known  unto  man  his  chastening, — 

make  possible  a  more  natural  translation  of  ]ni5  and  give  intelligible  reading. 
MT  "jriN  is  contracted  from  ']rT^i<!  "unceasing,"  "continuous,"  Duhm  1ipi|! . 
LXX  omits  196,  perhaps  because  of  unusual  words.     Bi.  omits. 

20.  MT  "irronTI,  an  impossible  form  of  the  word,  is  used  only  here.  Rd. 
probably  rrantl.  So  Duhm,  Beer.  Budde  DnTT.  In  cognate  languages  the 
etem  means  "be  foul,"  "loathsome"  (Ar.  Aram.).  Sieg.  omits  the  word  as 
corrupt.  Voigt  considers  v.  20  a  gloss  on  v.  22.  LXX  omits  v.  206,  probably 
as  superfluous.    For  thought  of  v.  20  cf.  Ps.  107:18. 

21.  MT  '^SJI'X?  "from  sight,"  a  pausal  form  from  '^X'n.  The  form  is  un- 
usual and  the  sentence  very  awkward.  Duhm,  Beer  "'T'l'D  (Isa.  10:16;  Ps. 
106:15  only),  "leanness."  It  is  possible  to  read  with  Syr.  HKI'^'O  "from  fear." 
MT  Kethiv  "^DTp^  "  bareness."  Qere  ISTIJI .  Rd.  Qere,  since  a  vb.  is  needed 
here;  so  Sieg.  Duhm,  Beer.  Wr.  ^STp"]  "seek,"  with  the  thought  that  "his 
limbs  seek  not  to  be  seen."  MT  IXS  i<b .  The  phrase  is  very  awkward  in 
construction,  and  does  not  give  the  meaning  required  here.  Rd.  rather 
n5<!'l'0b  "to  sight"  (cf.  LXX-Kai  dwodei^y  to,  dcxTa  avroO  Kevd).  Bi.  Duhm  strike 
as  gloss  after  "iS"!^,  Budde  with  1  of  v. 22  reads  ^1X3  Xb  (Ct.l:10;  Ps.93:5), 
"which  are  not  comely."  The  verse  is  in  any  case  very  prosaic,  but  the 
wasting  effect  of  disease  is  clearly  indicated  with  or  without  text  emenda- 
tion. 

22.  MT  nTlTS'pb  "to  the  death  bringers."  Rd.  with  LXX  Vet.  Lat.  Syr. 
Tar.  riTOb,  or  better  r\)'Q  i'ob,  Hoflf.  Perles,  Budde.  DTI'Q  itlb.  MT  sup- 
posedly refers  to  death  angels,  but  is  supported  by  no  parallel  passage  and  it 
is  inappropriate  that  life  should  draw  near  to  the  death  angels.  The  correc- 
tion was  probably  introduced  later  to  accord  with  the  gloss  in  v.  23. 

23.  MT  reads  tTSb'KJ  "angel"  before  'f  b'X?,  but  for  several  reasons  it 
appears  probable  that  it  represents  a  later  addition  to  the  verse,  perhaps 
under  the  influence  of  4:14,  15.  The  meter  is  improved  by  its  omission, 
nothing  else  in  the  passage  suggests  a  supernatural  agent,  and  the  interpre- 
tation in  accord  with  the  entire  thought  of  Elihu  is  that  he  is  suggesting 
himself  as  the  Daysman  of  9:34,  who  is  to  make  clear  to  Job  the  meaning  of 
his  affliction  (cf.  Introduction).  y^bl2  (Gen.  42:23;  Isa.  43:27;  II  Chr.  32:31 
only)  is  in  no  case  used  of  a  supernatural  intermediary.  Clause  6,  to  refer  to 
^Xb^ ,  should  follow  it.  The  phrase  is  used  as  in  9:3  to  mean  the  one  among 
many;  Budde,  Sieg.  omit  it  as  gloss,  Budde  also  TfSb'a.  MT  T^Snb,  Duhm, 
Beer  with  LXX,  Syr.  T^a'^l .  MT  intji  is  not  the  proper  word  here.  Rd.  with 
LXX   ^'^D'^12.    So   Duhm,  Beer.     12   has  fallen   out  after    QIX.    Bi.  reads 


72  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

24.  He  hath  pity  upon  him,  and  pleadeth, 
"Let  alone  that  he  pass  not  to  Sheol; 
The  price  of  his  soul — I  have  found  it." 

25.  Then  his  flesh  groweth  soft  like  a  lad's; 
To  the  days  of  his  youth  he  returneth. 

26.  He  prayeth  to  God,  who  hath  mercy, 
That  his  face  now  with  joy  he  beholdeth, 
Yea,  He  restoreth  unto  man  his  uprightness. 

27.  Then  he  singeth  before  men,  and  crieth: 
"I  have  sinned  and  perverted  the  right 
Yet  not  as  my  sin  was  it  visited  upon  me." 

Xb  DX  at  the  beginning  and  omits  clause  c.  LXX  has  a  four-line  addition 
after  v.  23  which  is  in  reality  an  amplification  and  double  translation  of 
vv.  23,  24.  Genung  interprets  the  passage  as  referring  to  Elihu,  though  he 
retains  TTJCb'O,  which  he  translates  "messenger."  Posselt  (p.  17)  quotes 
Volck  and  Knabenbaur  as  interpreting  the  passage  without  reference  to  an 
angel. 

24.  Rd.  simple  Impf.  in  the  verbs  of  v.  24a,  not  conversives,  as  Budde. 

MT  ^asni.i,  Hoff.  ^sanrr^i,  or  isspi'^t  "he  supplicates."   MT  "inyis.   Rd. 

with  MSS  Ken.  206,  454  in^nS  (Job  15:4)  (cf.  Cheyne,  J.Q.,  July,  1897,  p.  577). 
MT  form  is  unknown.  Hoflf.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  as  above;  Dill.  Sieg. 
^rns  or  ^n5{"B  .  MT  nrnU  mi's ,  Budde  omits  as  a  gloss.  Rd.  ITTSD  after 
"\SD ,  which  was  probably  lost  through  confusion  with  following  vb.  in  v.  25. 
Meter  and  thought  demand  it. 

25.  MT  TlJptS'l,  a  quadrilateral  stem,  is  found  only  here.  Altschtiler 
Z.A.T.W.  (1886),  p.  212,  proposed  tJSt:;  Bi.  Hoff.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer  12212"' 
"be  gross  or  fat,"  found  only  Ps.  119:70.  Perhaps  it  is  better  to  rd.  with 
LXX  Tin^.  (cf.  LXX  translation  II  Kings  22:19;  Ps.  54:21).  Probably  the 
verb  became  transposed  with  ITCSS  of  v.  24  and  the  present  confusion 
resulted.  MT  "i:?:'^.  Rd.  rather  with  LXX  Syr.  '_DD .  Bi.  Beer,  Duhm  rd. 
v.  as  part  of  address  and  the  Jussive  1110^.  'I'''5ai5y  Aram.  Plu.,  abstract, 
20:  n. 

26.  iniiT'l,  lit.  "And  he  is  gracious  unto  him."  MT  i?1.1]'l  must  be  read 
as  Hiph.  since  God  is  still  the  subject;  so  Dill.  Budde.  Beer  suggests 
^nxn'1'1,  Hit.  with  Syr.  iJ'lI'l.  Point  both  verbs  as  simple  imperfects.  MT 
mU'in',  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  "13011,  or  ntSl^l,  for  parallelism  with  v.  27a.  For 
thought  of  vv.  26,  27  cf.  8:21;'  Ps.  22:22,  25;  Ps.  27:6;  Isa.  38:20. 

27.  MT  ntji  "he  looketh."  Point  "ITp^  Hit.  Dill.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer. 
This  meaning  is  required  by  context.  Point  "1'0X"'1  instead  of  couversive. 
Add  probably  with  LXX  Vet.  Lat.  at  end  of  v.'  27  "i^iy?  for  meter  and  to 
complete  the  thought.  So  Duhm,  Beer.  Bi.  \"lSi:nD.  MT  niTp  is  difficult. 
Budde,  Duhm  H^Tp ,  Sieg.  3''TlJn .  If  MT  is  correct,  "  it  was  not  equaled  to 
me"  is  the  mea'ning  here.  (Cf.  B.D.B.)  Budde  reads  nitJ  bs  S?bl.  Bi. 
transposes  v.  26c  and  v.  27a  and  reads  ip'H?  tJijXb  ItJ^I  TQi?^  illJSb  by  "ib^ 
"Sich  selbst  dann  spricht  er  Tadel,  Verktindet  dass  ihm  Heil  ward." 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  73 

28.  "He  redeemeth  my  soul  from  destruction, 
And  my  life  now  beholdeth  the  light." 

29.  Behold  all  this  worketh  God, 
Twice  and  yet  thrice  with  a  man ; 

30.  To  bring  back  his  soul  from  destruction, 
To  enlighten  with  the  light  of  life. 

31.  Attend  now,  oh  Job,  hark  to  me; 
Be  silent,  and  I  will  yet  speak. 

32.  If  thou  hast  words,  give  me  answer; 

33.  Else,  give  thou  ear  unto  me; 

Hold  thy  peace,  I  will  teach  thee  wisdom. 

Chap.  35 

2.  Canst  thou  account  this  for  justice, 
Callest  it  "my  righteousness  before  God"  ? 

3.  That  thou  sayest,  "What  profiteth  it  thee? 
What  availeth  it,  that  I  sinned  not?" 

28.  Vv.  28  and  29  are  obelized  in  LXX  and  supplied  from  Theo.  but  the 
Gk.  of  V.  30  representB  Heb.  v.  28.  Vv.  29,  30  are  the  omitted  verses.  Sah. 
reads  vv.  27,  28, 31a.  So  Bi.  Rd.  with  Keth.  LXX  (v.  30),  Theo.  Syr.  iffiSD  and 
^n^^m .  Qere  Tar.  Vul.  rd.  3  per.  suflf.  MT  nnm  MSS  Ken.  158,  270  nbl233 . 
Budde  suggests  this  reading  or  nnn^  for  -Q37^  (cf.33:24;  Ps.30:10;  55:24). 

29.  LXX  Sah.  om.  as  superfluous.     For  form  of  expression  cf.  5: 19. 

30.  MT  n-iTCnb,  Beer  with  Syr.  n^TpH  or  l^TlJU.  MT  nisb  (^nisnb), 
"be  light,"  but  difficult  here.  Rd.  as  Wr.  n^i?b ,  Duhm  in  TX!; .  Correction 
is  needed  to  make  intelligible.     Syr.  niX'l?  "  to  behold." 

31.  LXX  omits  v.  316  to  end,  as  unnecessary  and  out  of  place  before  34: 2f. 
Gk.  MSS  23  and  Cod.  Alex.  rd.  after  v.  28  (Gk.  v.  30),  34:1,  2,  then  nttS  ^D 
(Cod.  Alex,  adds  nT^S)  followed  by  33:29,  30.  Evidently  the  omitted  vv. 
were  supplied  here  on  the  margin  and  later  given  their  present  position. 
Duhm,  Beer(?)  trsp.  vv.  31-33  after  34: 16.  Bi.  reads  line  a  with  one  from  34: 1 
in'aii  nibs?  }'ST\  ,  and  omits  316  to  end.    Budde  omits  v.  33. 

'  '  32.  7\]r}^  is  a  Piel  Inf. 

33.  T^SbS^J?"!.  The  vb.  wlbx  in  the  Piel  meaning  "teach"  is  an  Aramaic 
use,  found  only  Job  15:5;  35:11,  and  here. 

35:1.  "And  Elihu  answered  and  said."  The  heading  is  no  more  in  place 
here  than  in  34:1  or  36:1.  35:2  should  probably  follow  directly  on  33:33. 
Bi.  Wright  om.  v.  1. 

2.  MT  "^pl?  "my  righteousness."  Perhaps  we  should  read  with  LXX 
Syr.  Tar.  Vul.  '"Tp^S  "I  am  more  just  than  God."  So  01s.  Beer.  The  MT 
gives  a  better  parallel  here,  however. 

3.  This  verse  is  omitted  by  MS  B.  of  the  LXX,  but  MSS  X-  »■,  A.  C.  23, 
and  other  cursives  rd.  it.  MT  Tfb ,  Beer,  Duhm  rd.  ""b.  Cf.  19:28;  22:17  for 
a  similar  change  of  person.  MT  b"iyX ,  Hoflf.  Sieg.  rd.  b^^n ,  as  addressed  to 
God.  MT  inSUntt  is  used  hypothetically,  "more  than  if  I  had  sinned." 
Eliphaz  is  really  quoted  here.    Cf.  15:3;  22:2. 


74  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

4.  I  will  answer  to  thee  yet  a  word, 

And  unto  thy  friends  that  are  with  thee. 

5.  Look  unto  the  heavens  and  see, 
Behold  the  skies — how  high  above  thee. 

6.  If  thou  sinnest  what  dost  thou  against  Him  ? 
What  to  Him  if  thou  multiply  sinning  ? 

7.  If  righteous,  what  givest  thou  Him  ? 
Or  what  shall  He  have  from  thy  hand  ? 

8.  'Gainst  a  man  like  to  thee  is  thy  sin, 
Thy  righteousness  but  toward  a  mortal. 

9.  For  that  oppressors  are  many,  men  cry  out; 
Groan  'neath  the  arm  of  the  mighty. 

10.  Yet  say  not  "Where  is  God  who  hath  made  us. 
Who  giveth  songs  in  the  night  time  ? 

11.  'Fore  the  beasts  of  the  field  doth  He  teach  us, 
'Fore  the  fowls  of  the  air  makes  wise. 


4.  LXX  but  not  Vet.  Lat.  adds  niDbW  before  -"Tl .  This  is  the  only 
direct  reference  by  Elihu  to  the  friends  after  the  introduction,  and  the  state- 
ment here  would  be  singular  after  chap.  34.     Bi.  Budde  omit  v.  4. 

5.  Cf.  for  V.  5,  11:8;  22:12.  D^pniS  is  used  36:28;  37:21;  38:37.  Cf.  also 
Isa.  45:8. 

6.  MT  in,  but  this  usage  is  only  found  here.  Possibly  rd.  with  2  MSS, 
Ken.  Syr,  Vul.  lb.  MT  bysn,  Budde  bjsri.  Bi.  omits  nism  for  the  sake 
of  mete'r.     Cf.  7:20;  22:3.    " 

7.  Vv.  76-lOa  are  omitted  in  LXX  Codd,  Colb.  Marm;  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.; 
Cod.  Bodl.  omits  vv.  8-IO0.  LXX  probably  read  the  text  but  vv.  76,  8  were 
considered  superfluous.    Bi.  Hatch  omit  the  verses,  reading  v.  76  with  v.  106. 

8.  mi<  '\2  is  found  elsewhere  in  Job  only  in  25:6. 

9.  V.  9,  as  stated  above,  is  omitted  by  some  MSS  of  the  LXX,  probably 
because  of  its  somewhat  loose  connection  with  the  foregoing  and  the  change 
of  person.  Vv.  9  and  12  are  a  little  puzzling  here,  but  Elihu  is  apparently 
answering  Job's  claim  that  unjust  oppression  goes  on  unheeded.  Cf.  9:24; 
24:12.  Duhm  omits  vv.  9, 12;  Beer  transposes  v.  9  before  v.  12.  MT  W^'pWT . 
Rd.  probably  with  MS  Ken.  368  Theo.  Sym.  Syr.  Tar.  Vul.  D^piffir  for  the 
sake  of  the  parallelism.  MT  Ip'^yT"':  cf.  with  npri"i  in  v.  12  — both  with  the 
same  meaning.  MT  CZll  in  the  sense  of  "great"  is  not  good  here  after 
mi  "number."  Probably  read  D'^yi  as  in  v.  12  with  Beer.  Budde  suggests 
this  reading. 

10.  If  the  verse  is  to  follow  v.  9  we  must  read  plurals  with  the  Syr.  TTQit 
and  nriSy.  So  Budde;  Sieg.  reads  the  former.  MT  iir7;  cf.  "i;!!?:?  32:22.  MT 
nTTOT,  Wr.  m-lTTa  (cf.  38:32).    For  the  thought  cf.  Ps.  77: 7  f.,  Ps.  149:5. 

11.  MT  n:sb^  =  i:B^ii!'a.  For  the  use  of  the  Piel  of  this  stem  cf.  33: a3; 
cf.  12:7,  8.  It  is  lack  of  trust  on  the  part  of  the  oppressed  which  explains 
God's  apparent  silence,  Elihu  would  say. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  75 

12.  So  they  cry — and  he  answereth  not — 
For  the  haughtiness  of  the  evil. 

13.  For  surely  God  will  not  hear  vanity, 
The  Almighty  will  not  regard  it. 

14.  Yea,  for  thou  sayest,  thou  beholdest  Him  not. 
Thy  cause  is  before  Him,  thou  waitest  for  Him, — 

Chap.  36 

2.  Suffer  me  a  little,  that  I  may  show  thee, 
For  I  have  yet  words  for  God. 

3.  I  will  bring  my  knowledge  from  afar, 

I  will  show  forth  the  justice  of  my  Maker; 

12.  LXX  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.  cm.  v.  12a.  Codd.  Alex.  23,  161  om.  also  v.  126. 
LXX  probably  had  the  entire  verse,  but  v.  12a  was  omitted  for  the  same 
reason  as  v.  9.  Duhm  omits  v.  12  with  v.  9  as  a  gloss.  Bi.  omits,  but  Hatch 
mistakenly  retains  the  extra  verse  as  though  found  in  the  LXX.  MT  UX2  is 
curiously  used  here,  but  certainly  cannot  have  local  meaning,  "there."  The 
verse  is  awkwardly  constructed;  Hiy^  S?b  should  logically  follow  v.  126. 

13.  Bi.  Duhm  insert  tlBTp  before  SITU  to  agree  with  fern,  ending  of 
nsmiU'i.  Budde  inserts  nri©;  Ley  reads  Dnyitj  after  ITHI,  but  it  is  prob- 
ably simpler  and  better  to  read  '13^1'lU'',  agreeing  with  is^'^;  an  additional 
word  is  not  needed  in  the  line. 

14.  V.  14  should  be  followed  immediately  by  36:2.  It  introduces  another 
appeal  of  Elihu  for  God's  justice.  Vv.  15,  16  which  obviously  are  out  of 
place  here,  as  structure  and  thought  show,  are  read  before  34:34.  MT 
IDTTCri.  It  is  possible  we  should  read  with  Tar.  Vul.  (LXX, /cat  a-dxrei  fie). 
IDnitJi  "He  regardeth  it  not."  Bi.  with  LXX  reads  iSniTCi,  Voigt  ID-nTUX. 
MT  I'^n  "judgment"  Perles,  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  dH'I  (Ps.  37:7),  "be 
silent,"  but  the  form  is  very  unusual.  Bi.  reads  I'H  from  an  Arab,  root, 
"Beug  dich."  MT  bbinn^  .  The  form  is  apparently  a  Polel  of  bin ,  but  it  is 
found  only  here  =" wait."  Budde,  Beer  rd.  Hithpolel  bbinnni  (Ps.  37:7). 
Bi.  reads  with  LXX  bbnril  "so  wirst  du  danken."  If  a  change  is  to  be  made 
rd.  bninn,  probably,  from  bW^  "wait"  (Job  29:21,23;  30:26,  etc.).  Budde 
suggests  this  reading  also.  Budde  and  Duhm  rd.  the  last  clause  as  a  com- 
mand of  Elihu  to  Job,  but  the  present  text  does  not  support  such  a  reading. 

36: 1.  "l^i?i"l  "in-ibX  DD11  "And  Elihu  added  and  said."  The  verse  is  to 
be  omitted  like  the  other  headings;  it  is  especially  disturbing  between  35:14 
and  36:2  which  are  in  immediate  connection  (cf.  27:1,  29:1).  It  is  omitted 
by  Bi.  Duhm;  Beer  transposes  it  before  35:15. 

2,  "iriD  is  used  in  Aram,  sense  of  "wait,"  but  only  here  in  O.T.  "T^yt  "a 
little"  is  found  elsewhere  only  Isa.  28:10,  1,3.  MT  nibxb ,  LXX  {^v  ifwl)  may 
have  read  inibxb,  as  Hoff.  does.  Bi.  inserts  ^n,  Duhm  ""b  after  Hl^.  Cf. 
13:7,8. 

3.  MT  lyT.  Cf.  32:6.  Hoflf.  reads  "^y'l  "Ich  ehre  den,  der  mich  aus  der 
Feme  behiitet."  plirnsb  is  found  in  this  form  in  Job  only  39:29.  (Cf.  Isa. 
37:26.)     "^bys  is  only  used  here  in  this  form. 


76  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

4.  For  surely  my  words  are  not  false; 
One  perfect  in  Knowledge  is  with  thee. 

5.  Lo,  God  is  mighty  in  strength; 
Rejecteth  not  the  pure  of  heart. 

76.  Kings  upon  thrones  He  setteth, 
And  they  without  end  are  exalted. 

8.    But  if  they  be  bound  with  fetters, 
Be  taken  in  the  toils  of  aflSiction, 

4.  IpTU  "falsehood"  is  very  common  in  Prov.  myT  D'^'On ,  cf.  I  Sam. 
2:3  and  a  similar  phrase  in  37:16.  The  Plu.  mn  is  found  only  here  and 
I  Sam.  2:3.  The  other  uses  refer  to  God  and  this  may  be  the  reference  here, 
but  the  context  seems  against  this  interpretation.  Wright  omits  7\'i27  as  a 
gloss  and  reads  "I^^D  bx  "H  mn  D^TSn . 

5.  V.  5  as  it  stands  in  the  MT  is  very  awkward  and  almost  impossible  in 
construction.  Bi.  reads  ]T[  as  nSPi  with  v.  4  and  in  v.  5  "Q  CS'50'^  Xb  bS? 
nsbV  Duhm,  Beer  om.  Xbl  T'^S  as  a  variant  of  Db  "I'^DD,  also  om.  FID  as 
further  gloss,  rd.  Sb  "3?  and  join  with  v.  6a.  Ley  nbl  flD ,  Budde  suggests 
Sb  DDn;;  (cf.  9:4).  Probably  rd.  riD  after  T^ID  in  v.  5a.  This  gives  a  good 
half-line  and  the  transposition  is  easily  explained  by  similarity  of  form  in 
V.  56.  Then  read  in  v.  56,  Db  "13 .  Cf.  LXX,  oii  /ut?  airo-n-oiricreTai  t6v  S.KaKov,  and 
Syr.  which  rd.  apparently  3bnD  13 .  The  change  supplies  the  necessary 
object  for  DX'01,  gives  an  appropriate  thought  and  the  corruption  is  easily 
explained.  For  use  of  13  cf.  11:4;  Ps.  24:4;  73:1;  also  "l"n3  in  33:3.  LXX 
omits  V.  56  as  superfluous.  Here  begins  supposedly  the  second  of  the  large 
LXX  omissions,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  LXX  and  Sah.  read  v.  6a  before 
V.  12,  V.  66  after  v.  15,  and  v.  7a  instead  of  the  Heb.  v.  17.  The  real  omission 
thus  begins  with  v.  76.  The  passage  reconstructed  in  the  order  of  the  LXX 
yields  a  far  better  connected  and  more  intelligible  reading:  the  verses  will 
therefore  be  read  in  this  order,  allowing  the  connected  insertion  to  precede. 
The  obelized  passages  are  marked  as  follows  in  the  various  recensions:  vv. 
56-9,  106-11  Cod.  Colb.  (also  v.  5a)  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.;  vv.  56-11  Codd.  Vat. 
(248  H.  and  P.)  Alex.  Marm.;  vv.  7-11  Cod.  Bodl.  It  is,  however,  evident 
from  the  Sah.  that  the  inserted  verses  are  76-9,  106-11,  also  vv.  12,  13,  16, 
17  of  the  Heb.  text,  which  will  be  considered  later.  These  verses  read 
together  yield  a  connected  thought  on  a  theme  not  directly  related  to 
Elihu's  argument,  and  their  omission  leaves  the  text  much  clearer.  For 
further  discussion  see  the  introduction.     Hatch  omits  vv.  56-9, 

7.  The  vv.  76-9, 106-13  are  concerned  with  the  fate  of  kings.  The  con- 
struction in  this  verse  is  very  awkward.  MT  riSI .  Some  vb.  perhaps  stood 
here  originally,  but  rd.  text  as  the  sign  of  the  Ace.  (So  Syr.)  Duhm,  Beer 
rd.  DS  (cf.  Theo.  fierk).  MT  ZITV"^"!  ■  Rd.  with  Ley,  Duhm  LTV'}  nSlb ,  lit. 
"forever,"  is  really  connected  with  D3'^T13''.     Cf.  for  verse  Ps.  89:16. 

8.  MT  D-'inON.  Budde  reads  DnCS?  with  God  as  subject.  D^pT  "fet- 
ters," from  an  Aram,  root  ppT,  is  found  only  Na.  3:10;  Isa.  45:14,  and  Ps. 
149: 8.  Cf .  especially  the  last  reference  for  form  and  thought.  Cf .  also  Ps. 
107:10. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  77 

9.   He  showeth  them  then  their  deeds, 

Their  transgressions, — that  they  are  o'erweening. 
106.  Speaks,  that  they  turn  from  their  evil. 

11.  If  then  they  hearken,  and  serve  Him, 
They  Uve  out  their  days  with  good, 
And  all  of  their  years  in  delight. 

12.  But  if  not,  they  pass  unto  Sheol, 
And  without  knowledge,  they  perish. 

13.  For  the  godless  in  heart  cherish  anger, 

They  send  forth  no  cry  when  he  binds  them. 
10a.        Through  chastening  He  openeth  their  ear, 
6a.        But  He  granteth  not  life  to  the  wicked. 

9.  MT  la'^T,  Budde  reads  na^"}.  1"a:;n''  "be  haughty."  The  Hithpael 
is  found  Job  15:25;  Isa.  42:13,  and  here. 

10.  V.  10a  belongs  to  the  original  text  of  the  passage  as  shown  by  the 
LXX  and  Sah.  and  is  read  with  v.  6a  before  v.  12  (LXX  text).  Hatch  retains 
the  half -verse,  but  Bi.  omits.  Do  not  rd.  Vav  Conversive  in  by^^  and  I'OSi'^l . 
This  use  of  'T53S  =  "to  command  to,"  is  late;  found  in  Dan.  Ch.  Est. 

11.  MT  "n^yT  "serve,"  is  found  in  this  absolute  sense  only  Isa.  19:23. 
MT  lbD\  Hoff.  with  about  70  MSS  Ken.  reads  lbn\  as  in  21:13.  MT 
C'a'^yDl  DrT^SDBT,  Duhm  and  Beer  om.  as  gloss.  The  last  line  is  a  little 
short,  but  the  three  lines  are  too  long  for  one  couplet. 

12.  V.  12  is  not  obelized,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  LXX  translation  of 
V.  12,  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alex,  and  the  Sah,,  bears  only  a  very  superficial 
relation  to  the  Heb.  text  and  cannot  represent  it.  The  verse,  as  is  shown  by 
its  immediate  connection  with  v.  11,  belongs  also  to  the  insertion  but  was 
wrongly  identified  with  v.  12  of  the  LXX,  the  Heb.  of  which  may  have  been 
pushed  out  before  the  insertion.  Bi.  and  Hatch  both  retain  the  verse. 
Duhm  suggests  that  the  omission  of  vv.  76-11  would  be  far  more  probable  if 
V.  12  could  be  included  as  it  indeed  should  be.  MT  lyofij^  iib .  It  is  possible 
we  should  follow  Beer's  suggestion  and  om.  the  vb.  as  inserted  from  v.  11 
because  of  the  length  of  the  line.  MT  n5TZJ3  "by  the  sword,"  as  in  v.  18. 
Probably  rd.  with  Duhm  as  Syr.  nbXtJD ,  though  the  MT  may  be  correct 
here  and  33:18  changed  to  agree  with  it. 

13.  Codd.  Alex.  Vat.  Marm.  Bodl.  and  Syr.  Hex.  and  Sah.  om.  v.  13.  Bi. 
and  Hatch  om.  and  Budde  strikes  as  a  gloss.  It  belongs  with  the  connected 
insertion  vv.  76-9, 106-13.  CiSn  is  found  in  the  Elihu  sections  elsewhere  only 
34:30.  Other  words  are  employed  for  "wicked"— yffll,  etc.  MT  OX  D^W 
"lay  up  anger,"  is  a  very  awkward  expression,  and  perhaps  incorrect.  Duhm 
supplies  D^ba  after  D"^!!?  (cf.  Ps.  13:3);  Hoflf.  reads  OS  as  a  conjunction  and 
Sb  referring  back  to  v.  13a — "Nicht  einmal  Anstalt  machen  um  Hilfe  zu 
bitten." 

10a.  The  order  of  the  Gk.  text  has  been  indicated  in  a  note  on  v.  5,  Vv. 
10a  and  6a  (LXX  v.  12a)  form  the  first  couplet  in  the  Sah.  text  after  v.  5. 
Clement  of  Alex,  quotes  the  passage  in  this  order,  Strom.  4.  26,  p.  641, 
AiKaluv  iis  uKoiei  6  Beds  do-e/Sets  5^  ov  aw^ei,  followed  by  the  Gk.  of  v.  126.     In  the 


78  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

12  LXX.  For  they  seek  not  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord; 
And  chastened,  they  yet  hearken  not. 

14.  Their  soul  perisheth  in  youth, 
Their  life  like  to  the  unclean. 

15.  But  the  afflicted  by  affliction  He  delivereth, 
Through  suffering  He  openeth  his  ear. 

66.  Judgment  for  the  oppressed  He  giveth ; 

7a.  From  the  just  withholdeth  not  justice. 


disorder  of  the  text  due  to  insertion  the  Gk.  of  v.  12a  was  not  recognized  as 
the  Heb.  v.  6a  and  a  parallel  translation  was  added  from  Theo.  The  verse 
follows  well  on  v.  5  and  gives  a  good  antithetic  parallelism.  "iCTOb,  lit.  "to 
chastening,"  LXX  rd.  TCb.  The  phrase  is  very  characteristic  of  Elihu. 
Bi.  reads  v.  6a  with  v.  5  as  follows:   yiTI  n-^m  xb  p-^->:Z . 

12.  It  has  been  already  stated  that  the  present  Heb.  v.  12  belongs  with 
the  insertion.    The  LXX  and  Sah.  rd.  after  v.  6a  (v.  12a  Gk.)  the  following: 

wapa.  TO  fiT]  ^ovXecrdai  e£5^vai  avrovs  rbv  Kipiov, 
/cat  5l6ti  vovdeTOVjxevoi.  avr)KOoi  ?i<yav. 

Clement  of  Alex,  reads  the  first  line  with  tov  debv  for  rbv  Kvpiov  after  vv.  10a, 
6a.    This  probably  represents  a  Heb.  text  somewhat  as  follows: 

^2Dn^  bx  ny^  ^bn^ 
-^'SiytO'^,  i<b  iiD^-j  ^'2^ 

This  gives  a  good  parallel  verse  in  harmony  with  Elihu's  argument  and 
appropriate  between  vv.  10a,  6a  and  v.  14.  For  the  usage  in  line  a  cf.  Job 
4:206,  216;  24:8.  Vet.  Lat.  reads  in  line  6,  "et  cum  monerentur."  Though 
the  Gk.  cannot  represent  the  present  Heb.  text,  the  resemblance  of  a  phrase 
led  to  its  being  retained  as  parallel.  The  original  Heb.  may  have  been 
dropped  when  the  insertion  was  made. 

14.  MT  nbn ,  probably  rd.  with  18  MSS  Ken.  n^Tan .  MT  n^Tp-i;?? . 
Rd.  with  Tar.  'pD,  Hofif.  D'^TIJ"]??  "durch  Heilige."  The  allusion  is  to 
temple  prostitutes  and  was,  Duhm  suggests,  proverbial  of  an  early  fate. 
Budde  omits  the  verse.     Cf.  33:18,  25. 

15.  V.  15  continues  the  theme  of  v.  10a  in  the  contrast  between  the 
rebellious  and  submissive.  MT  C:7i<.  Rd.  probably  with  Vul.  IITS.  So 
Budde,  Duhm,  Beer.  The  change  here  brings  the  application  to  Job's  case. 
LXX  V.  15a  represents  Heb.  v.  15,  but  v.  156  =  Heb.  v.  66  as  recognized  by 
Budde,  Dillmann,  Duhm,  Bi.     Bi.  reads  vv.  15,  66,  la,  followed  by  v.  18. 

66,  la.  These  two  half-verses  obviously  form  one  couplet  as  in  Heb.  text. 
In  the  Gk.  they  also  follow  one  another  in  vv,  156, 17,  though  separated  by 
the  inserted  v.  16.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  question  that  they  are  in  place 
here  rather  than  after  v.  5.  Such  confusion  must  be  the  work  of  an  interpo- 
lator, not  the  LXX  translators.  V.  la,  MT  T^rJ? .  Rd.  with  LXX  (v.  17)  as 
Budde  and  Beer  iri,  Duhm  n:7T2  p"^,  Budde  Cp^'S. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  79 

16.  Thee  also  hath  lured, 

Away  from  the  cry  of  distress, 

Freedom  that  had  no  constraint. 

The  peace  of  thy  board,  full  of  fatness. 

17.  The  judgment  of  the  wicked  thou  fulfillest; 
Judgment  and  justice  lay  hold  on  thee. 

18.    Let  not  wrath  stir  thee  against  chastening. 
Greatness  of  ransom  turn  away  thy  heart. 


16.  This  verse  is  omitted  by  Codd.  Alex.  Colb.  Vat.  Marm.  Bodl.  and  Syr. 
Hex.  and  Sah.  It  must  form  a  part  of  the  insertion  because  it  interrupts  the 
connection  between  vv.  66,  la  in  the  Gk.  vv.  15&,  17.  It  was  apparently 
added  with  v.  1  to  restore  connection  with  the  passage  after  the  transposition 
as  34:33.  Like  that  verse  it  is  very  irregular  and  obscure.  It  is  possible  to 
understand  God  as  the  subject  and  give  it  a  favorable  sense — the  interpre- 
tation adopted  by  Hrz.  Del.  Hit.  Budde,  and  others,  or  to  read  SH"^  as  sub- 
ject with  Ew.  Dill.  Hoff.  and  Ley.  Though  both  have  difficulties,  the  latter 
seems  more  probable.  Duhm  and  Beer  transpose  nnSI  Sm  before  '^^12 
and  rd.  as  subject.  MT  TjIT'Dn  "entice,"  can  hardly  be  used  in  a  good  sense 
because  of  36:18.  Hrz.  Hit.  T]"l"ipn ;  Beer  suggests  ^l^-^Sn .  MT  DN1.  Rd. 
perhaps  with  Hrz.  Dill.  Duhm,  Beer  nSI,  or  with  Budde  nS  DXT.  MT 
12  ""B^,  lit.  "from  the  mouth  of  distress."  Hoff.  reads  "I'^^S'Q  "dich  Eigen- 
sinnigen."  MT  rT^nnn,  Bi.  Budde  rd.  Tl-^nnn,  Duhm  T^rinn.  MT  nn31 
"quietness,"  as  Job  17:16  from  ni3  ,  Voigt  nPSI  "dasFleischsttlck."  Wright 
reads  as  3  Fem.  Sing,  of  Aram.  stem.  The  word  is  strangely  used  here  and 
Sieg.  omits  it  as  corrupt.  For  the  thought  of  the  verse  indicating  prosperity 
cf.  Ps.  4:1;  18:20;  23:5;  118:5.  For  a  similar  use  of  1D  cf.  I  Sam.  2:1  cited 
by  Ley. 

17.  V.  17  of  the  LXX,  Vet.  Lat.  and  Sah.  is  a  close  translation  of  v.  la 
and  has  only  the  word  'pi  in  common  with  the  Heb.  v.  17.  This  verse  also, 
though  not  marked  with  the  obelisk,  belongs  to  the  inserted  verses  and  is 
closely  connected  with  v.  16.  Bi.  Budde  om.  flXb'a,  lit.  "thou  art  full"  is 
curious.  Sieg.  riXb'Q .  MT  'J"'T  (v.  176)  is  omitted  by  Duhm,  Beer,  as  a  repeti- 
tion of  li'^l  in  V.  17a;  they  also  rd.  T|D'an  TOSID'OI,  and  Duhm  reads  H^Jlb 
from  V.  18  with  v.  17.  Ley  ^P'OP'^  Hoff.  strikes  "'D  of  v.  18  as  dittograph  and 
reads  TTan  with  v.  17,  "Urteil  und  Gericht  welche  das  Gift  festhalten." 

18.  6m.  "^D  of  MT  as  dittograph  of  "ID  at  the  end  of  v.  17  with  Bi.  Hoff. 
Duhm,  Beer.  MT  H^n ,  Ew.  reads  Opn ,  Bi.  'ah ,  Budde  H^in ,  Beer  nan  . 
Rd.  the  MT  probably  as  a  casus  liendens  belonging  with  the  following 
clause.  MT  ppm  is  a  doubtful  word.  (Cf.  B.  D.  B.)  In  Job  20:22  pS©  = 
"fulness,"  so  translated  here  by  Hoffman.  Bi.  pSt03,  "gegen  den  Ziichti- 
ger."  Budde,  pSTpb  "zum  Hohnen."  Duhm  pStp'5?  "chastisement,"  but 
the  form  does  not  occur.  Beer  omits  2.  It  is  probably  best  to  rd.  with 
Dillmann  "bei  der  Zuchtigung"  from  rt.  pSTD  or  pSD  "strike,"  "clap." 
(Cf.  34:26.)  IBD,  cf.  33:24.  The  ransom  is  the  cost  of  suffering  and  sub- 
mission. 


80  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

19.  Shall  He  order  thy  deliverance  without  distress, 
And  all  the  forces  of  might. 

20.  (Desire  not  the  night, 

When  peoples  go  up  in  their  place.) 

21.  Beware,  lest  thou  turn  unto  sinning; 

For  this  cause  wert  thou  tried  with  affliction. 

22.  Lo,  God  is  exalted  in  might; 

Who  is  like  unto  Him  to  be  feared  ? 

23.  Who  hath  appointed  Him  His  way  ? 
Who  shall  say,  "Thou  hast  wrought  evil.'' 

24.  Remember  that  thou  magnify  His  work, 
For  thereof  all  men  have  sung. 

19.  The  verse  has  had  many  and  various  readings.  One  interpretation 
reads  "rTIT  as  "thy  wealth,"  and  !fiy  as  "be  equal  to"  (of.  28:17,  19),  refer- 
ring to  the  ransom  of  v.  18.  This  is  held  by  Hrz.  Hit.  Wright.  123  is  then 
pointed  122  "gold,"  Job  22:24,25.  Another  interpretation  reads  T^^ITD  "thy 
cry"  (of.  30:24),  as  subject,  "Wird  dein  Geschrei  (dich)  ausser  Bedrangniss 
setzen,"  so  Del.  Budde.  Budde  points  "yi©.  Dill.  Hoff.  understand  God  as 
subject  and  7\y^^D  as  object.  "Wird  er  dein  Bittgeschrei  in  Ordnung  bringen, 
Ohne,"etc.  Ley  reads  Tiiy-^H;  Bi.  '5bb  123  ib  7^7)©  Tfl^-^n ;  Duhm  reads 
T^n"'©  and  "lb  for  sb,  translating  Tfiy  as  in  37:19,  "Wird  gegen  ihn  aufkom- 
men  deine  Klage."  The  best  suggestion  is  that  of  Beer,  "70"^,  which  is  very 
easy  and  gives  the  sense  required  by  the  context.  (Cf.  Syr.  "pIDII .)  MT 
''SiaS^  is  probably  "powers,"  but  the  word  is  found  only  here.  LXX  omits 
this  clause,  perhaps  because  of  the  difficulty  of  this  word.  Sieg.  omits  vv.  19, 
20  as  hopelessly  corrupt. 

20.  V.  20  is  hopelessly  corrupt.  It  is  omitted  by  the  LXX,  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.  and 
may  have  belonged  to  the  insertion.  It  may  also  have  been  omitted,  because 
unintelligible.  Bi.  Hatch  om.  Budde  makes  no  attempt  to  translate  v.  205, 
Sieg.  omits  the  verse  as  corrupt.  Duhm  alters  to  read:  ribpH  "STSri  *N 
D|nri^  U7  n'lbyb,  "Nicht  betruge  dich  die  Thorheit,  dich  zu  erheben  mit 
dem  der  sich  weise  diinkt."     MT  Dnnn  ,  Voigt  reads  DPnri'p  . 

21.  MT  nfby ,  Budde,  Duhm,  BVer  rd.  nbiy  "iniquity."  MT  FlinS  "thou 
hast  chosen."  Rd.  the  vb.  in  the  Aram,  sense,  "try,"  "test,"  as  Isa.  48:10  with 
Ew.  and  Wright.  Point  PIHS .  The  reading  is  supported  by  the  Syr.  and 
gives  a  much  more  natural  interpretation  to  the  passage.  V.  216  is  omitted  in 
LXX,  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.,  but  evidently  belongs  in  the  text.    Bi.  omits  vv.  216,  22a. 

22.  MT  3"'5iil5"^  "be  exalted."  Hiph.  is  found  only  here.  Beer  suggests 
■'Sip'^,  regarding  3  as  dittograph.  MT  Hli^  "teacher."  Rd.  probably  Aram, 
form  Xip  "fearful"  (LXX  Suvdo-rrjs).     So  Ew.  Hzr.  Stud.  Bi.    Baeth.  suggests 

■  nip  or  btpiia .    Cf.  Isa.  30:20  for  MT  and  Dan.  2:47  for  corrected  form.    Cod. 
Vat.  marks  .36:22—37:6  as  omitted. 

23.  Cf.  9:12;  34:13. 

24.  MT  X'^SiSri.  Wr.  reads  as  a  Hiph.  denominative,  "Remember  how 
great  is  his  work."  MT  ^111^  is  probably  a  Polel  from  I"'©  "sing"  (cf. 33:27). 
Wr,  reads  it  from  1*1®  "see."     LXX,  Sah.  Syr.  Hex.  om.  vv.  246, 2oa  as  super- 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  81 

25.    Every  man  may  look  upon  it; 
A  mortal  shall  see  it  afar  off. 

26.    Lo,  God  is  exalted,  we  know  Him  not; 
The  number  of  His  years  is  unsearchable. 
27a.  For  He  restraineth  the  drops  of  the  water; 
286.  Makes  His  cloud  to  o'ershadow  many  men. 
33.    He  appointeth  a  season  for  the  cattle, 
They  know  the  place  of  their  lying  down. 

fluous;  they  probably  understood  IITIIJ  as  "see."  The  parallelism  shows  the 
lines  should  be  retained.    Hatch  omits  36:24:6— 37:5a  of  the  Heb.  text. 

25.  Bi.  Budde  omit  v.  25.    Cod.  Alex,  marks  vv.  25-286  as  omitted. 

26.  With  V.  26  begins  the  last  of  the  large,  connected  insertions  omitted 
in  the  LXX  text.  The  verses  omitted  in  the  section  36:26—37:14  form  a 
connected  poem  on  the  rainstorm.  V.  26  may  have  formed  the  opening  verse 
of  the  poem  or  may  have  been  added  here  when  the  poem  was  inserted.  It 
is  somewhat  irregular  and  resembles  36:22a,  37:56  very  closely.  Budde, 
Duhm,  Beer  om.  as  a  gloss;  Bi.  also  omits  it.  MT  VllS  HDCO,  Duhm  sug- 
gests 1'1'ttJy'D.  X"'!^'©  "great"  is  an  Aramaism,  found  here  and  in  37:24.  The 
omitted  verses  in  the  various  recensions  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  are  as  fol- 
lows: Cod.  Vat.  vv.  22-33,  Cod.  Alex.  vv.  25-286  (Gk.  text)  vv.  29-33,  Codd. 
Marm.  Bodl.  vv.  26-28a,  vv.  29-33,  Cod.  Colb.  vv.  29-33,  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.  vv.  26, 
276,  28a,  29-33.    For  further  discussion  of  the  omission  cf.  Introduction. 

27a,  286.  These  two  half -lines  formed  the  verse  of  the  original  text  between 
which  was  inserted  the  verse  276,  28a  of  the  Rainstorm  Poem.  V.  27o  probably 
motived  the  insertion.  MT  ^'l^'^  is  usually  translated  "draw  up,"  but  "re- 
strain," "withdraw"  (15:4,  36:7)  represent  its  meaning  more  accurately.  MT 
W.'Q  ''DT2D,  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  D^'a  D'^S'JS .  The  noun  "^212]  is  found  only  here. 
V.  286  has  a  double  translation  in  the  LXX,  one  having  been  mistakenly 
added  from  Theo.  LXX  rd.  iaKlaa-ev  di  v^tprj  iirl  d/xu^^ry  j3poT<J3 ;  so  also  Sah. 
Theo.  yvo(p(i}d^<rovTai.  Vul.  praetexunt,  rd.  probably  ''b^  D7  Cin"^  or  possibly 
nDD"^  (cf.  Ps.  147:8).  SBH  "cover"  is  translated  by  (TKid^elv  in  Deut.  33:12, 
This  reading  is  good  and  the  corruption  not  hard  to  explain.  The  17  fell  out 
before  "O^  and  the  1S3?T'  of  MT  was  adopted  after  the  insertion,  perhaps 
under  the  influence  oflsa.  45:8,  where  this  form  is  parallel  with  ib'^P.  MT 
nn,  Sieg.  nn,  Wright  n'^n'^n")  "showers." 

33.  After  v.  286  the  LXX '  Codd.  B.  Alex.,  Vat.  (248)  and  10  cursives,  Syr. 
Hex.  Sah.  rd.  two  verses;  MS  C  and  21  cursives  after  37:5a: 

wpav  fOero  KT-qveffiv,  oiBaffiP  5e  koLttjs  rd^iv. 

iwl  TOVTOis  Trdffiv  ovk  i^iffTarai  troy  i)  8idvoia,  oide  StaXKdfffferai 

ffov  T)  KCLpSia  dird  ffWfMaros ; 

The  last  two  lines  are  easily  recognized  as  the  Heb.  37:1,  as  Dillmann,  Bi. 
Duhm  have  already  observed.  But  the  two  lines  which  precede  represent 
also  the  preceding  Heb.  36:33,  which  has  become  very  corrupt.  The  Heb. 
represented  is  somewhat  as  follows:  Hjiya  D^p'p  ^7"!^  •^JP?''?^  f^?  T^?!!. 
This  text  gives  a  good  parallel  verse  structure,  perfectly  appropriate  after 


82  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

37: 1.     At  this  is  not  thy  heart  stirred, 
And  leapeth  it  not  within  thee  ? 

276.  He  poureth  out  the  rain  as  His  mist, 
28a.  Which  the  skies  drop  down  from  above, 
29.   Who  can  know  the  spreading  of  the  cloud, 
The  thunderings  of  His  pavilion? 

V.  286,  and  is  not  far  from  the  radicals  in  Heb.  v.  33.  On  the  other  hand  v.  .33 
in  its  present  form  is  unintelligible  and  has  given  rise  to  innumerable  con- 
jectures, none  of  which  are  satisfactory.  Sieg.  omits  the  verse  as  unintelligible 
in  its  present  condition.  The  corruption  of  the  text  is  due  to  displacement, 
when  the  insertion  was  made.  In  the  present  context  the  verse  h;id  no  mean- 
ing and  various  attempts  at  correction  were  made.  If  T^Zp'Cb  and  IS^T^ 
became  transposed  the  ensuing  corruption  is  easily  explained.  Because  of 
this  corruption  Origen  failed  to  recognize  the  Gk.  v.  28b,  c  as  representing 
Heb.  36:33,  37:1;  he  inserted  a  duplicate  translation  from  Theo.  and  allowed 
the  Gk.  verses  to  retain  their  original  position  after  v.  28.  If  the  inserted 
verses  36:29-32,  33:2-5a  are  removed,  the  position  of  these  two  verses  is  the 
same  in  MS  C  and  21  cursives.  The  evidence  for  an  insertion  is  almost 
indisputable.  Dill,  and  Duhm  pronounce  Gk.  v.  28b  a  gloss  on  36:336,  37:8. 
Bi.  retains  36:33,  but  reads  the  Heb.  text  which  yields  no  appropriate  sense. 
Cf.  for  thought  Ps.  104:20-22. 

37:1.  This  verse  is  quite  closely  represented  by  the  Gk.  v.  28c.  MT  ClX. 
Rd.  probably  as  Bi.  Duhm  5?bn ;  also  with  LXX,  Vet.  Lat.  7^3?  as  do  Bi. 
Duhm,  Beer.  Syr.  reads  pb.  MT  nniT  from  nnS  "leap."  Of.  Hab.  3:6. 
MT  yoTip'Q'Q,  lit.  "from  its  place."  The  verse  expresses  the  effect  of  ponder- 
ing on  the  wisdom  of  God,  as  expressed  in  vv.  27a,  286,  33.  In  Codd.  Colb. 
Vat.  Marm.  Bodl.  this  verse  is  obelized  in  its  position  at  the  beginning  of 
chap.  37.  Syr.  Hex.  obelizes  v.  la.  The  Sahidic,  of  course,  reads  the  verse 
after  36:28. 

276,  28a.  LXX,  Sah.  Syr.  Hex.  om.  these  lines  as  already  noted  under  v.  26. 
They  form  the  real  beginning  of  the  Psalm  of  the  Rainstorm  found  in  36:276, 
28a,  29-32,  37:2-5a,  66,  11,  12  (cf.  Introduction).  MT  IpP  is  from  rt.  ppT, 
used  of  retining  of  metal,  and  rare  (Mai.  13:3;  Ps.  12:7).  Rd.  with  Vul.  (effundit) 
pk"^,  Theo.  iTTixvdifia-ovTai,  Syr.  reads  3  Mas.  Sing.  This  gives  a  far  more 
natural  reading.  Duhm  pr ,  Hoff.  Budde  ^pr  •  MT  ^13)2 ,  Wr.  ^U^-Q .  MT 
1"i5b,  Duhm  "nS'a.  ^5?  is  found  only  here  and  in  Gen.  2:6.  Wright  reads 
the  final  1  with  v.  28a.  Bi.  omits  vv.  276,  28a,  but  reads  a  part  of  vv  28a 
with  V.  286.     Cf.  here  Ps.  104:13. 

29.  Vv.  29-32  form  an  unbroken  section  of  the  inserted  poem.  Bi.  omits 
the  verses,  Budde  vv.  29,  30.  Cf.  Ps.  18:11,  105:39.  MT  DN  wlS?.  Rd.  rather 
with  Syr.  i^1.  So  Sieg.  Budde,  Ley,  Duhm,  Beer.  The  MT  gives  an 
ambiguous  sense.  MT  "11012)2  "the  spreadings,"  is  found  only  here  and  Ez. 
27:7.  MS  Ken.  245  "liSbEtl.  Cf.  37:16.  MT  niSiian  "thunderings,"  the 
form  is  dubious;  we  should  perhaps  rd.  with  Beer  some  form  from  niTD, 
Theo.  IffbrriTa,  Sym.  i^  tcTTjs,  but  no  suitable  form  is  known.  MT  IPDO ;  for 
the  probable  reference  see  Ps.  18:12. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  83 

30.  Lo,  about  Him  He  spreadeth  the  cloud, 
And  He  covereth  the  tops  of  the  mountains. 

31.  For  thus  He  judgeth  the  peoples; 
Yea,  and  gives  good  in  abundance. 

32.  About  His  hands  He  wrappeth  the  lightening, 
He  directeth  it  unto  its  goal. 

Chap.  37 

2.  Hark  now  and  hear  the  rumbUng  of  His  voice, 
The  muttering  that  goeth  forth  from  His  mouth. 

3.  Under  all  the  heavens  He  sendeth  it  forth, 
His  lightening  upon  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

30.  MT  mX  "his  light";  in  the  context  IT'S  is  better  and  the  change 
very  easy.  Theo.  (LXX  MS  X" " )  reads  -nSu,  a  transcription  of  the  form  in 
MS  B  rf  vSv;  Tar.  XTJi^,  Duhm,  Beer  rd.  IT^J?.  MT  W^n  '^mtl')  "the 
roots  of  the  sea,"  is  a  very  improbable  reading  and  furnishes  no  parallel  to 
v.  30a.  Duhm's  suggestion  is  attractive  and  easy,  n''in  "'ICNTI .  MT  HDD , 
Budde  reads  nbS,  Marshall  XD?  "the  roots  of  the  sea  are  his  throne."  The 
suggestion  to  make  T2^T\  refer  to  the  heavenly  sea  (Hrz.  Hit.  Hoff.)  is  uncon- 
vincing. 

31.  U2  "by  them,"  must  refer  to  IT^X  of  v.  30,  thought  of  in  collective 
sense.  His  rainclouds  bring  judgment  and  bounteous  harvests.  MT  T'T', 
Beer  "j^P  "gives  food."  MT  T^SDia  is  found  only  here  with  the  force  of  a 
substantive,  Hiph.  of  "QS  in  35:16.  Cf.  with  this  section  Ps.  107:33-.36;  Job 
37:13. 

32.  MT  "IS'^I,  lit.  "commandeth."  MT  ^''aS'aa  "the  assailant,"  but  the 
Hiph.  Part,  is  not  what  is  wanted  here.  Rd.  with  01s.  Hoff.  Dill.  Budde, 
Beer,  Duhm  rSSm  "the  mark"  (cf.  7:20).  MT  n-'by,  rd.  perhaps  with 
about  5  MSS  Ken.  Sieg.  Budde,  T'by,  referring  to  the  lightning.  Duhm 
proposes  for  v.  32,  73Sia3  ^ny^p.";!  I^Xn  ObS'^^  D3  by  "Auf  der  Schleuder 
wiegt  er  das  Licht,  und  schleudert  es  auf  das  Ziel."  The  Rainstorm  Poem 
is  continued  without  interruption  in  37:2-5a.  The  poem  is  printed  as  a 
whole  in  the  section  of  the  introduction  on  "The  Omissions  of  the  LXX 
Text." 

37: 2.  Vv.  2-5a,  6&  continue  the  Rainstorm  Poem  after  36:32.  The  omissions 
of  the  MSS  are  as  follows:  vv.  2-5a,  Codd.  Alex.  Colb.  Vat.  (248  H.  and  P.) 
Marm.  Bodl.  and  the  Sah.;  vv.  2b-5a,  Syr.  Hex;  v.  66,  Codd.  Colb.  Bodl.  Syr. 
Hex.  Sah.;  v.  6,  Cod.  Alex.  MT  lypp,  Duhm  and  Beer  rd.  with  Theo.  and 
Syr.  yat .  This  may  be  correct.  Del.  Hit.  Budde,  Genung,  and  others  find 
here  a  suggestion  of  the  whirlwind  in  which  Yahweh  appears.  The  reference 
is,  however,  quite  general.  Hatch  omits  vv.  2-5a,  a  part  of  v.  6b  and  v.  la. 
Bi.  omits  vv.  2-5a,  66. 

3.  MT  nnnWi  is  probably  from  niffi  "send  forth,"  found  only  here  and 
in  the  Qere  Jer.  15:11;  cf.  Aram.  SIC.  MT  bj  may  perhaps  be  a  mistaken 
writing  for  bx ,  as  Budde  regards  it. 


84  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

4.   And  after  it  roareth  a  voice, — 

He  thundereth  with  the  voice  of  His  majesty, 
He  stayeth  not,  when  His  voice  is  heard, 
66.  The  rain  and  His  mighty  storm. 
5b.  Great  things  He  worketh, — we  know  Him  not; 
6o.  For  He  saith  to  the  snow,  "Fall  earthward." 
7.  Upon  every  man  He  setteth  a  seal. 
That  all  men  may  know  His  doing. 

4.  V.  4a,  b  forms  the  first  couplet  here;  v.  4c  should  be  read  with  v.  66. 
Of  the  intervening  lines  vv.  5&,  6a  belong  to  the  original  text  and  v.  5a  is 
undoubtedly  a  weak  gloss  on  v.  4&,  as  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer  have  recognized. 
It  was  probably  added  when  the  Rainstorm  Poem  was  inserted  here.  MT 
bnp.  Possibly  rd.  with  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer,  and  2  MSS  Ken.  "IDIp.  MT 
i:iX!^  blpn  n^y.,  Duhm  reads  b^  OyT ,  and  13113  as  object  of  2^71;  the 
following  12  and  "^D  he  reads  as  ''S73  and  translates,  "Nach  ihm  briillt  sein 
Donner,  Gott  larmt  mit  seinem  Donner,  Seine  Kehle  hemmt  er  nicht,  aus 
seinem  Munde  lasst  sich  horen  sein  Donner."  Budde  reads  "jiXS  for  lD1S{3i . 
MT  nnpyi,  2  MSS  Ken.  22?"]  (cf.  Tar.).  The  word  is  used  here'  like  Aram. 
DDy  "hold  back,"  which  should  perhaps  be  read  (cf.  B.D.B.).  Hoflf.  trans- 
lates "verfolgen"  like  Syr.  np7.  Budde  Qpn2  np^-i .  The  suffix  in  C2pyi 
is  usually  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  lightning,  but  the  reference  is 
very  remote.  It  stands  in  apposition  to  the  object  in  v.  65,  which  forms  a 
very  appropriate  conclusion. 

66.  MT  ITy  mnii'a  DTTDiI  nU'a  DirrO .  There  is  evidently  a  dittograph 
here,  for  the  line  is  too  long.  Probably  om.  with  Syr.  11111312  CCiH,  since 
niltSTG  is  an  unknown  form.  Ols.  Sieg.  Duhm,  Beer  om.  Sieg.  reads  DTTM 
1l3^n.  3  MSS  Ken.  om.  1t3121  DTTr^l,  as  do  HoflF.  and  Budde.  R.l.  zm 
1t3«1.  MT  iry,  Duhm  l-fyn,  Hoff.  Beer  1-7^  "be  mighty."  Cf.  with  the 
verse  Ps.  29:3. 

5.  V.  5a  through  nii<bB3  is  omitted  by  the  LXX  witnesses.  The  first 
three  words  are  certainly  a  gloss  on  v.  46  and  are  omitted  by  Budde,  Duhm, 
Beer;  111X553  is  in  a  very  curious  construction.  The  whole  line  was  probably 
added  by  an  editor.  MS  Ken.  223  omits.  Duhm  suggests  niSbS3  bx  13Xn^ 
Budde  reconstructs  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  from  36:26,  ']"'X1  nixbss  nt^y 
r^^^b'-^  ipn.  it  is  after  v.  5a  that  Gk.  MS  C.  and  21  cursives  rd.  36:33,  37:1, 
thus  confirming  the  omission  and  the  position  of  these  verses  after  36:286, 
where  they  are  found  in  Gk.  MSS  B.  Alex.  Colb.  and  others  and  in  the  Syr. 
Hex.  Sah.  V.  56  with  v.  6a  forms  the  next  verse  of  the  original  text  after 
37:1;  so  Bi. 

6a.  i«in  is  probably  an  Aram,  form  of  Ar.  nin  "fall."  16  MSS  Ken. 
nin,  Vul.  deseendat.  Sieg.  Budde  rd.  HI")  "water"  (cf.  Isa.  55:10);  Graetz, 
Perles  5511 .  V.  66  following  upon  v.  6a  is  in  a  very  peculiar  construction 
and  interrupts  the  connection  in  thought  between  v.  6a  and  v.  7.  It  follows 
far  better  on  v.  5a. 

7.  In  retaining  v.  7a  a  departure  is  made  from  the  evidence  of  the  LXX 
and   Sah.     The   line,  however,  plainly  belongs  in  this  context,  not  in   the 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  85 

8.  Then  the  beasts  go  into  their  dens, 
And  abide  in  their  hiding  places. 

9.  From  His  chamber  cometh  the  tempest, 
Out  of  the  storehouses  cold. 

10.  By  the  breath  of  God  ice  is  given; 

And  the  water's  breadth  lies  in  constraint. 

11.   Yea,  He  ladeth  the  thick  cloud  with  lightning, 

The  cloud  scattereth  forth  His  light. 
12a.    And  is  turned  about  on  every  side, 
To  work  according  to  His  wisdom, — 

Rainstorm  Poem;  it  may  have  been  considered  too  similar  to  v.  76.  Bi. 
retains  the  entire  verse.  MT  T^l  gives  a  very  curious  statement.  Rd.  with 
Hit.  Duhm,  Beer  n7Il  and  of.  the  use  in  9:7  and  Jd.  3:23.  Duhm  omits  bs 
in  V.  7a,  Budde  that  in  v.  76.  MT  inirr'a  ''Zi:^ ,  Ho£F.  Duhm,  Beer  rd. 
tJi:N,  Budde  inipy  D^CDi?,  Dill.  Wr.  ^nt?37  n^TrsS.  It  is  simplest  to  read 
with  the  Vul.  as  01s.  Baeth.  IriTljya  ff^TDwii .  Sieg.  omits  vv.  7,  8  as  an  inter- 
polation, out  of  place  in  the  context.  This  difficulty  is  removed  if  the  Rain- 
storm insertion  is  recognized. 

8.  MT  i«inni .  Probably  rd.  with  Budde  simple  Impf.  H^y^ .  Of.  36:33, 
38:40.  Duhm  regards  the  Greek  36:286  =  Heb.  36:33  as  a  gloss  on  this  verse 
which  became  misplaced. 

9.  "nnn  "the  chamber."  Duhm  adds  T^Tl  (9:9)  and  omits  the  article; 
Hoflf.  reixards  the  word  as  the  name  of  a  planet.  MT  D'''1TTQ^1  is  probably  a 
Piel  Part,  from  HIT,  referring  perhaps  to  "the  scattering"  winds.  So  Dill, 
and  Bi.  translate,  but  the  parallel  is  not  good.  Hoff .  Duhm  refer  it  to  planets 
or  stars  (Vul.  Arcturo).  Rd.  probably  with  Voigt,  Budde,  CITlQ'ai ,  for  the 
sake  of  the  parallelism.  Cf .  Ps.  144 :  13.  Sieg.  omits  the  word  as  corrupt.  A 
similar  form  of  expression  is  found  in  38:22;  Ps.  104:13;  135:7. 

10.  MT  ')n%  Rd.  with  Sym.  Syr.  Tar.  Hit.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer.  ^PT^ . 
Dill.  Hoff.  read  bs  as  subject  of  "jni.  MT  p?^^,  lit.  "constraint."  Wr. 
translates  " molten "=" mirror."  Cf.  37:18.  For  vv.  9,  10  cf.  Ps.  147:17.  Bi. 
omits  V.  10.  Only  v.  10a  is  omitted  by  the  majority  of  LXX  witnesses  and 
this  is  due  to  its  likeness  to  v.  96.  The  verse  structure  shows  that  it  should 
be  retained. 

Vv.  11,  12a,  6,  13  form  the  conclusion  of  the  Rainstorm  Poem.  They  are 
omitted  by  the  Syr.  Hex.  and  Sah.  The  exact  limits  of  the  omissions  in  the 
Gk.  MSS  are  a  little  hard  to  ascertain.  The  LXX  must,  however,  have  read 
V.  12c  since  the  present  Gk.  text  has  a  duplicate  translation  of  the  line.  V.  11 
was  not  omitted  in  the  Gk.  and  Lat;  v.  12a,  6,  c  are  lacking  in  Cod.  Colb.; 
V.  126,  c  in  Cod.  Marm.;  vv.  12c,  d,  13  in  Cod.  Vat.  (24S  H.  and  P.);  v.  13  Codd. 
Alex.  Bodl.  The  three  omitted  couplets  should  follow  vv.  4c,  66.  Bi.  retains 
vv.  11a,  12.  MT  1"13  is  apparently  2  and  a  form  ''"1  from  mn  "saturate," 
but  it  is  found  nowhere  else.  Sym.  Vet.  Lat.  Vul.  rd.  frumentum,  "'HS .  Hoff. 
reads  in  =  'i';iSn  "Schaustiick,"  Duhm  TlZl  "hail."  Probably  read  with 
Budde  for  the  sake  of  parallelism  pn^ .  MT  n''1t3;]  "  burden,"  but  the  verb 
is  found  only  here.     Cf.  noun,  Isa.  l7l4;  Deut.  1:12,  and  cf.  also  26:8.     Beer 


86  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

12c.  All  these  things  He  hath  commanded  them,. 
On  the  widespread  face  of  the  earth. 

13.   Whether  for  judgment  on  His  land, 
Or  if  in  mercy  He  send  it. 

14.  Hear  this,  oh  Job,  and  give  pause; 
Ponder  the  marvels  of  God. 

15.  Knowest  thou  how  He  ordereth  His  work, 
Makes  the  light  of  His  cloud  to  shine  forth  ? 

16.  Knowest  thou  the  poisings  of  the  clouds. 
The  marvels  of  the  Perfect  in  Knowledge  ? 

proposes  ITIip^  "send  forth,"  from  an  Ar.  stem.     MT  "5^  should  be  pointed 
■)py  with  15  MSS  Ken.  Theo.  Tar.  (MSS).  Vul.  and  Budde',  Duhm,  Beer. 

12.  V.  12  really  forms  two  couplets,  the  first  of  which  was  omitted  in  the 
LXX  and  forms  a  part  of  the  inserted  poem.  That  the  omission  only  extended 
through  Dbysb  and  not  through  DISS"'  is  indicated  by  the  Sah.  text  and  by 
the  duplicate  translation  of  v.  12c  in  the  present  LXX.  V.  12a,  b  refers  to 
the  cloud  and  lightning  of  v.  11,  thought  of  in  the  collective  sense.  This 
should  be  followed  by  v.  13.  The  clouds  are  turned  about  to  work  God's  will 
for  judgment  or  blessing.  MT  m^D'Q  is  a  plural  from  SD'Q,  found  only 
here.  Probably  rd.  with  Budde  I'^ID^  "round  about."  Beer  inserts  after 
it  35'ID'' ,  Budde  TT^riri'^ ,  to  supply  a  vb.,  but  TlSrinia  should  be  read  with 
V.  12a.  'Duhm,  Ley  insert  with  Budde  Tlbnni,  but  after  TfSnrTa.  V.  12b 
consists  of  nbysb  inblinnD  in  which  the  first  word  counts  for  two  accents: 
inblinnn,  Kethlb  inb",  Qere  "l^nb".  The  word  belongs  to  the  Wisdom 
vocabulary  and  is  found'onlyProv.  1:5:  11:14;  12:5;  20:18;  24:6.  MTObysb, 
Beer  reads  bbpb ,  and  joins  with  "ITUX  bS'Q . 

12c,  d  form  a  couplet  giving  a  summary  of  vv.  56,6a,  7-10,  which  should 
be  followed  by  v.  14.  In  the  original  form  "11255  may  have  been  nbi? ,  which 
LXX  reads  here.  MT  Dl^i,  Beer  reads  im2^.  MT  nsnSJ  (cf.  Prov.  8:31), 
Budde,  Beer  rd.  nsni?  (.34:1,3);  Duhm  isin?  (Est.  1:8).  'sieg.  omits  v.  12c,d 
as  a  gloss. 

13.  MT  12"lXb  DiJ,  Duhm  reads  nnS^b")  "for  a  curse";  Hit. '=12'1  Xb, 
Hoflf.  "IS^b^^isnb.  Beer  suggests  omission  of  second  DX  and  vb.  ^n!3?''"lV 
Cm.  the  second  Qi5  with  Sah.  and  Sieg.  Dill.  Budde,  Duhm,  Beer.  The 
parallel  verse  structure  is  much  improved  by  this  correction.  MT  ^HSjISb'P'], 
rd.  probably  with  Duhm  ^HS^^i"',  which  gives  a  far  better  meaning.  Bi. 
Budde  om.  the  verse.  It  follows  well  on  vv.  11,  12a,  b  and  forms  a  very 
appropriate  conclusion  to  the  Psalm  of  the  Rainstorm.  The  comparison 
which  Duhm  suggests  with  Enoch,  chap.  59,  is  very  striking.  Cf.  also  36:31 
and  Ps.  107:33-36. 

14.  MT  iby,  Beer  "7^7. 

15.  MT  nn-'by  nibs .  Rd.  with  LXX  Sah.,  as  do  Bi.  Duhm,  l^bys  bs< . 
In  the  MT  Dn''by  has  no  suitable  antecedent  and  the  construction  with  by 
is  very  curious.     MT  Q^il53,  Perles  !fW3.     Budde  omits  vv.  15, 16  as  glosses. 

16.  MT  yinn.  Beer  proposes  nS-inn.  MT  ''irbS'a  "weighings,"  is 
found   only  here.     The  same   formation  is  found  in   '^TdS'O,  36:29,  which 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  87 

17.  What  time  thy  garments  are  hot  about  thee, 
When  the  earth  Ueth  still  'fore  the  south  wind, — 

18.  Canst  thou  beat  out  with  Him  the  skies, 
Firm  like  to  a  molten  mirror  ? 

19.  Show  me  what  we  might  say  unto  Him! 
We  order  not  our  speech  for  our  darkness. 

20.  Should  it  be  told  Him  I  would  speak — 

A  mortal  speak  unto  his  own  confounding  ? 

21.  For  now  men  behold  not  the  light, 
When  yet  it  shines  forth  in  the  skies, 
When  a  wind  hath  passed  and  cleared  them, 

22.  And  from  the  north  cometh  a  shining, 
Upon  God  is  terrible  majesty! 

Budde  reads  here.  Sieg.  omits  the  word  as  unintelligible.  MT  ri'lXbB'O . 
The  form  should  probably  be  the  same  as  that  in  v.  14,  msbsS ;  so  Syr. 
apparently  and  Sieg.  Budde.  LXX  i^aitna  5^  Trrw^ara  irovrjpQv.  Duhm  pro- 
poses n?yi2  ninn  Jibt?  n-iyn  mxbs^  niNns. 

17.  The  relative  IWii  may  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  Job  —  so  Dill. 
Hoff.  Budde  Bi.  Wr.,  "Thou  whose  garments,"  etc.  The  verse  is  to  be  con- 
nected with  V.  18.  Heat,  as  cold,  is  of  God's  sending  and  Job  is  powerless 
before  them. 

18.  yp'in  "beat"  or  "stamp  out,"  is  usually  used  of  gold.  The  Hiph.  is 
found  only  here.  MT  "^iJ^  "mirror,"  is  found  only  in  this  place.  The  verse 
apparently  refers  to  the  hard,  glittering  aspect  of  the  midsummer  heaven. 
Duhm,  Beer  trsp.  before  v.  21.  Bi.  omits  the  verse  which  is  omitted  by  some 
of  the  LXX  witnesses.     The  last  line  may  have  caused  difficulty. 

19.  MT  ^Sy^lin,  rd.  with  about  25  MSS  Ken.  LXX,  Syr.  Oriental 
Kethib  "^Dy",  as  do  Bi.  Dill.  Beer.  MT  TfiyS  "order,"  is  used  of  speech  as 
32:14  and  .33:5  without  an  object.  Voigt  f'^y? ,  Ley  inserts  after  it  ^b . 
MT  1]1l3n  "darkness,"  is  used  of  ignorance,  as  Eccles.  2:14,  or  of  perplexity, 
as  Job  19:8.     Sieg.  omits  the  word  as  uncertain. 

20.  MT  nSD'^n.  Duhm  "lIDin,  and  nai";  for  nmX.  Hoff.  reads  nBD"! 
and  y!??"!-  Duhm  reads  ybH''  as  related  in  meaning  to  bbD.  ybl  appears 
to  be  used  here  in  the  sense  of  "confound,"  "confuse,"  as  Ps.  55:10;  lit. 
"swallow  up." 

21.  MT  T^nS  "bright,"  "brilliant,"  occurs  only  here  and  is  dubious. 
Probably  rd.  with  Sieg.  STKHZI  "when  it  giveth  light"  (cf.  Syr.).  Budde 
"^r\p? ,  Beer  suggests  *in3 ,  obscurus  from  *in^ ,  as  in  Syr.  Bi.  omits  v.  21c 
and  v.  22a.  Duhm  reads  v.  21a,  c  as  a  couplet  and  v.  216  after  v.  22a.  Vv. 
21c,  22a  form,  however,  a  very  good  couplet,  as  do  vv.  22&,  23a.  Del.  Hit. 
Budde  and  others  believe  that  the  moment  before  the  appearance  of  Yahweh 
is  here  pictured.  The  best  interpretation  is  that  of  Dillmann:  men  cannot 
gaze  upon  the  unveiled  sun,  how  then  hope  to  behold  the  majesty  of  God. 
The  following  verses  bear  out   this  interpretation.     Budde  reads  in  v.  21a 

22.  MT  IHT  "gold,"  is  somewhat  dubious  and  inappropriate  here,  even 


88  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

23.  The  Almighty  we  cannot  find  Him; 
Mighty  in  strength  and  judgment, 
Great  in  justice,  He  afflicteth  not; 

24.  Therefore  shall  all  men  fear  him; 

The  wise  in  their  own  sight  He  regardeth  not. 

THE  WORDS  OF  A  SECOND  WISE  MAN 

Chap.  32 

Vv.  11-16.    Introduction  to  Chap.  34 

11.  Behold,  for  your  words  I  have  waited; 
I  hearkened  unto  your  reasonings, 
While  that  ye  sought  you  out  words. 

12.  Yea,  unto  you  I  attended, 
But  lo — none  reproved  Job, 

None  of  you  hath  answered  his  words. 

13.  Say  not,  we  have  found  us  out  wisdom, 
Let  God,  and  not  man,  overthrow  him. 

14.  Not  with  words  against  me  hath  he  striven. 
Nor  with  words  like  to  yours  would  I  answer. 

in  a  figurative  sense.  Rd.  probably  "IHT  "brightness,"  Ez.  8:2;  Dan.  12:3 
with  Duhm,  Beer.  Sieg.  reads  TT^rTi.  MT  i5^1D  "fearful,"  Beer  suggests 
Hi?"}? .     Cf.  Ps.  104:1,  2.     V.  22b  is  parallel  with  v.  23a. 

'  23.  X'':t)  is  an  Aramaism.  Cf.  36:26.  MT  nh"!.  Rd.  rather  with  Syr. 
S'Tl,  as  do  Hoff.  Duhm,  Beer.  It  gives  a  better  parallelism  and  construction. 
Duhm  and  Beer  trsp.  HplST  ITI  after  HD  and  rd.  t2STlJT31  with  TOyi  Xb . 
Sieg.  omits  (13^  55b  as  a  gloss.  It  is  possible  that  we  should  point  HD^^ 
"he  answereth  not,"  as  Hrz.  Hoflf.    LXX,  Syr.  interpret  in  this  way. 

24.  MT  'iniXn'^.  Rd.  probably  with  LXX  ^mi?n"i.  So  Budde,  Duhm, 
Beer.    MT  nS")': .  '  About  45  MSS  Ken.  read  ^i?T-     Cf.  Ps.  138:6. 

32:11.  Vv.  11-16  were  inserted  here  by  the  compiler  from  their  place  at  the 
head  of  chap.  34.  The  insertion  is  shown  by  the  duplication  of  v.  10  in  v.  17 
to  restore  connection  with  v.  18.  A  new  introduction  addressed  to  the 
friends  begins  in  v.  11;  for  a  further  discussion  cf.  the  section  of  the  intro- 
duction on  "The  Composition  of  the  Speeches."  Vv.  lie,  12  are  omitted  by 
several  LXX  MSS,  Syr.  Hex.  and  Sah.;  they  are  supplied  from  Theo.  Duhm, 
Beer  trsp.  v.  lie  and  v.  12a.  MT  ■j-'TS  =  "J^TSX  (5  MSS  Ken.),  ""nbriin, 
Hiph.  of  brr^ ,  is  used  only  here  and  v.  16;  elsewhere  in  Job  the  Piel  is  found. 
nb'Q  "word,"  is  an  Aramaism;  found  33  times  in  the  entire  book  and  14  times 
in^Elihu.     Bi.  with  LXX  reads  '^b'Q  DD-^niDinn  "I^  ^S^TSH  ini-jb. 

12.  V^  with  17  is  found  only  here  and  38:18  (doubtful)  Syr.  D?''"ty'l. 

13.  "jS  "Beware  lest,"  Job  32:13;  36:18.  MT  13SS^,  Bi.  i52^.  '  MT 
12ST1,  MS  Ken.  245  13S"ini,  MS  Ken.  207  IDSTli.  Juss.Impf.  of  DHD  here; 
elsewhere  Niph.  is  found.     Hit.  prefers  the  meaning  of  Cnn  "thrust,"  "push." 

14.  MT  Tfiy,  Syr.  1\'\'7i^  "set  in  array,"  is  used  of  words  as  here,  33:5; 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  89 

15.  Sore  dismayed,  they  answered  no  more; 
Their  words  had  departed  from  them. 

16.  And  I  waited, — they  spoke  not  a  word — 
They  stood,  but  they  found  not  an  answer. 

Chap.  34 

2.  Hear  now,  ye  Wise  Men,  my  words, 
Ye  of  knowledge,  give  ear  unto  me. 

3.  For  the  ear  testeth  words. 
As  the  palate  trieth  meat. 

4.  Let  us  search  out  for  ourselves  judgment; 
Let  us  know  among  us  what  is  right. 

37:19;  Pb.  5:4.  MT  ^bx,  2  MSS  Vb^.  Bi.  with  LXX  ]^b^  nbXD  tyX  Xb. 
Cf.  for  thought  13:18;  23:4. 

15.  Vv,  15,  16  are  omitted  by  several  LXX  MSS,  Syr.  Hex.  and  Sah.; 
they  are  supplied  from  Theo.  The  verses  add  nothing  in  their  present  con- 
text. IpTim.  The  Hiph.  is  found  in  Job  9:5  and  used  intransitively  as 
here,  Gen.  12:8;  26:22;  Prov.  25:1. 

16.  Possibly  cm.  Hiy  with  Theo.  as  repeated  from  v.  15;  so  Duhm. 
Tlbnim  is  usually  rd.  as  interrogative  with  question  particle  omitted. 

17.  '^3N  ns  lyn  nini?  ipbn  iss-si?  nsyx 

I  will  answer,  even  I,  my  share; 
I  also  will  show  my  knowledge. 

V.  17  is  a  weak  var.  of  v.  10  added  when  vv.  11-16  were  inserted  to  restore 
connection  with  v.  18;  it  indicates  limits  of  the  original  text.  LXX  reads: 
"Answering  Elihu  said,  I  will  speak  again."  Cod.  Alex,  has  v.  17  in  small 
characters  marked  with  an   obelus.    MT    nsyS,    Budde,  Beer,  Duhm  rd. 

34:1.  n'aii'^1  in'ibs  ]y'lT .  This  heading  is  not  in  place  here.  34:2  should 
follow  directly  after  32:16,  but  this  or  a  similar  statement  probably  stood 
originally  before  32:11  at  the  beginning  of  the  introduction  to  this  section. 
Duhm  suggests  that  34:1  may  be  from  the  hand  of  the  reviser,  who  confused 
32:11-17.  The  headings  of  the  chapters  are  probably  imitations  of  those  in 
the  dialogues. 

2.  The  Wise  Men  addressed  are  certainly  not  the  three  friends,  but  the 
hearers  of  a   Wisdom   Debate  or  even    understanding  readers.     Bi.   reads 

mi:  ntt  is^Txn. 

3.  V.  3  =  12:11.  LXX  omits  v.  3,  probably  because  it  is  quoted.  Theo. 
supplies  the  verse.  MT  bbxb,  Theo.  Syr.  Vul.  rd.  bpi^b,  as  do  Sieg.  Beer. 
Rd.  perhaps  rather  bipS5  lb  with  Budde  as  in  12:11.  Duhm  reads  v.  3  with 
33:31f.  after  34:16;  Beer  transposes  v.  3  after  33:33.     Bi.  Hatch  om.  vv.  3,  4. 

4.  LXX  omits  v.  4  with  the  exception  of  1113  JTO  which  they  read  at  the 
end  of  V.  2,  showing  that  they  had  the  text  of  v.  4;  Theo.  supplies.  MT 
rr^riDS,  Kautzsch  translates  "test"  or  "find  out  by  testing"  (cf.  Isa.  48:10), 
and  considers  the  usage  an  Aramaism. 


90  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

5.  For  Job  hath  said,  "I  am  righteous, 
But  God  hath  taken  from  me  my  justice. 

6.  Though  right  is  mine,  I  am  counted  a  liar; 
Without  transgression, — grievous  is  my  wound." 

7.  Where  is  a  man  like  to  Job, 

Who  drinketh  up  mocking  as  water  ? 

8.  He  maketh  fellow  with  doers  of  evil, 
He  walketh  with  men  of  sin. 

9.  And  he  saith,  "It  profiteth  not  a  man, 
That  he  find  in  God  his  dehght." 

10.  Far  be  it  from  the  Lord  to  do  evil, 
From  the  Almighty  to  work  iniquity. 

11.  As  a  man's  work  doth  He  render  unto  him. 
In  the  path  of  a  man  He  findeth  him  out. 

5.  Cf.  9:15,  20;  13:18;  27:2. 

6.  LXX  is  marked  as  omitting  vv.  66,  7  (supplied  from  Theo.),  but  v.  8a 
of  the  Gk.  probably  represents  Heb.  v.  66  and  v.  7  is  omitted  because  quoted 
from  15:16.  Bi.  omits  vv.  66,  7;  Hatch  also  reading  v.  6a  with  v.  8a  of  Gk. 
MT  ■'tSDTlJ'a  by,  lit.  "Contrary  to  my  judgment."  MT  :27Di«,  Duhm  313*5. 
It  would  be  attractive  to  read  3X3X  "I  am  in  pain"  (cf.  Job  5:18;  14:22)  for 
parallelism.  (Cf.  Jer.  15:18,  where  the  root  is  used  as  a  parallel  to  tJIDX.) 
MT  ''Jrn,  lit.  "arrow"  (cf.  Job  6:4).  Duhm  '^SSn'a  (Isa.  30:26)  "''^'pn  "sickness" 
(cf.  Isa.  53:3,  4),  is  also  proposed. 

7.  Cf.  15:16. 

8.  Cf.  22:15.  MT  minb,  lit.  ''for  fellowship,"  is  fern,  noun  which  is 
found  only  here  (cf.  B.D.B.).     Dill,  reads  as  an  Inf.  with  fem.  ending. 

9.  Job's  words  are   not   exactly  stated   here.     Cf.  9:22;    21:15,  17.    MT 
The  vb.  is  used  with  b  in  22:2;  35:3.  but  cf.  also  15:3.     MT  in3r"l3. 


5C1 


I- 

The  root  is  used  with  03?  only  Ps.  50:18  and  here.     Budde  omits  vv.  9,  10a  as 

a  gloss  influenced  by  35:3. 

10.  MT  reads  in  v.  10a  "^b  lyaiT  nnb  ■''C2i5  pb  "Therefore,  hearken  unto 

me,  ye  men  of  understanding."     But  the  line  is  too  short  for  a  veree  and 

does  not  come  in  well  between  v.  9  and  v.  106,  c  which  form  a  regular  verse. 

LXX  MS  23  marks  the  verse  in  the  margin  as  an  insertion.     Probably  omit 

with  Bi.  and  Budde  as  a  gloss  added  from  vv.  2-4.     Duhm  fills  out  the  verse 

as  V.  2.    MT  ytJn'5a,  rd.  with  LXX  yiS^'a.     So  Budde,  Beer,  Duhm;   the 

sentence  structure  is  improved  by  the  change.     MT  "iTBT ,  rd.  probably  with 

LXX  Sah.  Aeth.  "^TObl  for  grammatical  construction;   so  Bi.  Beer,  Duhm. 

MT  bny^,  but  the  line  is  too  short.    Rd.  with  Budde  biy  bi^S'a  (cf.  36:23). 

The  reading  is  perhaps  supported  by  the  Syr.  and  the  transcriptional  error 

would  be  very  easy  because  of  the  similarity  of  the  letters.     Duhm,  Beer  rd. 

b^y^.     biy  is  found  only  here  and  34:32  in  Job;  elsewhere  nb'^y. 

'  11.  MT  brS  ^3,  rd.  with  LXX  Syr.  Sah.  Aeth.  byS3  ^3.    The   3   has 

fallen   out   after   another.     MT    mi53.    Rd.   with   LXX    Tar.    nni53.     MT 

^3J!?2J'aV    Rd.  with  LXX  Qal.  ^SSJ^'Q":.     The  Hiph.  of  NS:^  is  not  common 

and  the  change  improves  the  meaning. 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  91 

12.  Yea,  surely  God  cannot  do  evil, 

The  Mighty  perverteth  not  judgment. 

13.  Who  is  it  hath  appointed  Him  the  earth, 
Who  hath  'stablished  the  circle  of  the  world  ? 

14.  If  He  turn  again  to  Him  His  spirit, 

If  His  breath  unto  Him  He  withdraweth, — • 

15.  All  flesh  would  perish  together. 
And  man  return  unto  dust. 

17.  Shall  a  hater  of  right  hold  dominion. 
Or  the  Just  One,  the  Mighty  do  evil  ? 

18.  Who  saith  to  a  king,  "Thou  nothingness! 
Thou  wicked  one!"  unto  the  nobles. 


12.  MT  y'lffin^,  but  the  Hiph.  is  usually  used  in  the  sense  of  "condemn" 
which  is  not  usable  here.  Rd.  perhaps  with  Budde,  Beer,  Duhm  3712'^'?.  Cf. 
for  thought  8:3. 

13.  MT  ni^ni?  is  probably  a  poetic  form  (cf.  37:12;  lea.  8:23).  MS  Ken. 
173  i2"li5.  Bi!  Budde,  Beer  nSnX.  MT  DTi).  Beer  reads  T'by  after  it  or 
with  Budde  "TailJ ;  Duhm  transposes  "13?  from  v.  14  after  DtJ  and  reads 
b^ri!!.  Wright  transposes  vv.  13-18  after  v.  29  and  reads  in  the  order:  1-12, 
19-29&,  13-18,  29C-37.    Cf.  with  verse,  36:23. 

14.  MT  W'tD''  is  found  in  Qere  both  occidental  and  oriental.  Rd.  with  5 
MSS  Or.  Keth.  LXX(?),  Syr.,  n"'TS;',  which  is  necessary  for  the  sense.  So 
Budde,  Beer,  Duhm  rd.  MT  inlT  "12b .  The  two  words  are  obviously  vari- 
ants and  "lib  is  to  be  omitted  because  of  parallelism,  as  do  Bi.  Budde,  Beer. 
Ley  omits  imi.    For  thought  of  verse  cf.  Ps.  104:29,  30;  Eccles.  12:7. 

16.  "^12  bipb  HD'^TXn  ni?-T  ny^ia  ns^n  Diil .  if  the  verse  belongs  here 
nb''5  must  be  read  with  LXX  Sym.  A.  Theo.  Syr.  Tar.  Vul.  in  order  to  obtain 
a  grammatical  construction.  Beer,  Budde  rd.  thus.  Dill.  Duhm  rd.  HD"^?. 
LXX  MS  23  adds  before  the  verse  TOi^^l  IH^bi?  lyil.  Cod.  Alex,  prints 
the  verse  in  small  characters  and  marks  it  with  an  obelisk.  The  verse 
should  probably  be  omitted  as  an  editorial  gloss  like  v.  10a.  It  interrupts 
the  connection  here  and  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  the  chapter  which 
is  addressed  to  the  Wise  Men.  It  was  probably  added  to  supply  an  appeal 
to  Job  like  those  of  the  other  chapters.  Duhm  transfers  33:31-33  and  34:3 
to  a  place  before  v.  16.     Beer  suggests  this  also. 

17.  MT  TlJ'inn'^,  lit.  "bind,"  but  this  sense  of  rule  is  perhaps  derived  from 
Isa.  3:7  (cf.  LXX,  Isa.  3:7).  T^^D  p'^122  is  a  compound  expression.  Sieg. 
inserts  1  before  n'^lD .  MT  yiTlJnn .  Rd.  Stiy.  (LXX  reads  dae^^s  at  begin- 
ning of  V.  18).  Cf.  Syr.  Tar.  The  change  is  supported  by  the  versions  and 
gives  a  better  parallelism  (cf.  34:12).  The  change  is  proposed  in  Kit.  Ed.  and 
read  by  Bi.,  "Gerechte  Allmacht  freveln." 

18.  MT  nbXn.  Rd.  with  MS  Ken.  349,  LXX,  Syr.  Vul.  Sah.  Aeth. 
yatkn,  as  do  Ew.  Hrz.  Dill.  Hoff.  Budde,  Baeth.  Duhm,  Beer.  Sieg.  omits 
the  verse;  Bi.  reads  as  one  line  and  combines  with  v.  19a. 


92  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

19.  Who  giveth  no  reverence  to  princes, 
But  the  poor  as  the  rich  He  regardeth; 
For  the  work  of  His  hands  are  they  all. 

20.  In  a  moment  they  die,  and  at  midnight, 
Yea,  rich  men  are  shaken  and  perish; 

And  the  great  are  removed, — without  hand. 

21.  For  His  eyes  see  the  way  of  a  man, 
And  all  of  his  steps  He  beholdeth. 

22    Nor  darkness,  nor  shadow  of  death, 
Shall  hide  there  them  that  work  evil. 

23.  For  he  hath  appointed  no  place. 
To  come  before  God  in  judgment. 

24.  He  shattereth  the  mighty,  unquestioned, 
In  their  place  He  makes  others  to  stand. 


19.  V.  196,  lit.  "He  knoweth  not  the  rich  before  the  poor."  MT  133 
"know."    Cf.  21:29.    Duhm  I"!?:!.    Combine  v.  19c  with  v.  20a. 

20.  MT  nll'm  is  found  Ps.  119:62,  Exod.  11:4  only.  MT  03?  ^TSyiW  The 
phrase  is  unnatural  and  unintelligible  in  the  context.  Rd.  with  Budde,  Beer 
Qy-ITU  ^tJ75i\  The  dropping  out  of  the  similar  consonants  would  be  very 
easy  and  the  change  gives  the  required  parallelism.  Duhm  D^'O.  MT 
nn^D^n,  Beer  with  MS  Ken.  17  ^n^D^I.  Duhm  1^0^,  Budde  -IDIi.  Rd. 
perhaps  with  Beer  and  MS  Ken.  248  DTilX  to  agree  with  the  vb.  Beer  in 
quoting  these  two  MSS  in  Kittel's  ed.  has  transposed  their  numbers. 

21.  Cf.  22:13;  31:2-4. 

22.  Bi.  omits  a  part  of  v.  22,  all  of  v.  2.3,  and  reads  v.  24  as  one  line  with 
V.  25.  The  LXX  undoubtedly  read  the  text;  it  condenses  in  v.  22  and  para- 
phrases V.  23.     Cf.  for  the  verse,  Ps.  139:11. 

23.  MT  liy  nii?J;i  is  not  intelligible  here.  Rd.  with  Wr.  nyiB  WtO^ 
"appoint  a  place  of  meeting."  The  corruption  would  be  easy  and  the  change 
affords  an  excellent  sense  in  the  context.  So  Budde,  Duhm,  Klosterman  rd. 
Beer  l^h'iZ  2p^i ,  Marshall  '?S)2  10^. .  MT  bS5  bx ,  Sieg.  reads  bi^-ni? .  Cf. 
for  verse,  9:32.  Hatch  omits  vv.  23-33.  Hoflf.  reads  v.  23  after  v.  28.  '  LXX, 
Syr.  Hex.  Sah.  om.  v.  23a;  Cod.  Alex.  Vet.  Lat.  v.  23. 

24.  1j!5ri  ^5,  lit.  "without  inquisition,"  Syr.  Vul.  translate  "without 
number,"  which  G.  Hoflf  reads.  Cf.5:9;  9:10;  36:26.  MT  yT^.  S'^n  is  Aram, 
loan  word  for  fST,  not  found  elsewhere  in  Job.  Bi.  reads  v.  24a  as  one 
couplet  with  v.  25a.     LXX  of  v.  24  is  influenced  by  5:9;  9:10. 

25.  ^i5DT'i  nb^b  1\^n^  nni-iny^a  n-'D^  pb 

Therefore  he  knoweth  their  works. 

He  overturneth  them  in  the  night,  and  they  are  crushed. 

The  verse  is  out  of  place  in  the  context  and  is  probably  to  be  omitted  as 
a  weak  gloss  on  vv.  20,  21,  with  the  exception  of  INDT^I,  which  is  to  be  read 
with  V.  26  for  the  sake  of  the  meter.  LXX  omits  v.  256  together  with  Syr. 
Hex.  Sah.;  Cod.  Alex.  vv.  25-33,  Codd.  Colb.  Marm.  Bodl.  vv.  25-34.    Budde 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  93 

26.  He  crusheth  and  dismayeth  the  wicked, 

In  the  sight  of  men's  eyes  doth  He  smite  them. 

27.  For  that  they  turned  from  following  Him, 
Unto  all  His  ways  gave  no  heed, 

28.  To  bring  unto  Him  the  cry  of  the  poor, 
And  the  cry  of  the  needy  He  heareth. 

29.  If  He  be  silent  who  shall  condemn  ? 

If  He  hide  His  face  who  then  may  chide  Him  ? 
Alike  with  a  man  or  a  nation; 

30.  When  He  setteth  a  godless  man  as  king, 
Because  of  the  people's  transgressions. 

omits  vv.  25-28  as  glosses;  Duhm,  Beer  cm.  v.  25  through  r\b'^b  and  connect 
1SDT1  with  V.  26.  Bi.  reads  v.  25a.  11713  is  Aram,  for  nW'a  and  found 
only  here.    MT  ?[Sm ,  Sieg.  reads  DDSm . 

26.  Rd.  IXDl^T  of  V.  25  with  v.  26;  so  Syr.  (LXX  reads  probably  with 
V.  26  as  Tfy"":  "he  quenches,"  cf.  18:5,6;  21:17).  Rd.  probably  S?'!!'^']  and 
connect  with  the  following  (cf.  6:9).  Bi.  QiyTiJ-|  ^D^T-  MT  Diyti"!  nnn, 
has  no  meaning  here.  Rd.  D'lytJT  nn^T  "he  dismayeth  the  wicked."  Bi. 
Budde  rd.  ^npn  'tJI  nnn.  Duhm  for  "QiyTT-l  reads  D'^pipn  (cf.  Am. 6:11). 
MT  Q'^S"!  D'lp'Qn,  lit.  "in  the  place  of  those  seeing,"  Syr.  probably  rd. 
□■•iSTTO  "531  "place  of  fear."     Wr.  reads  □'^&?S'1  "shades." 

27.  'JD'by,  TlDS?  are  variants  and  very  awkward  here.  Omit  probably 
"(D'by  with  Bi.  LXX  Syr.  appear  to  have  only  one  connective.  Budde, 
Beer,  Duhm  cm.  the  verse  as  a  gloss.     Cf.  21:14. 

28.  The  verses  from  28-33  are  probably  a  later  insertion  with  a  particular 
national  reference.  Cf.  Introduction.  LXX,  Cod.  Vat.  (MS  248  H.  and  P.) 
omits  vv.  28-33  which  are  supplied  from  Theo.  Syr.  Hex.  Sah.  also  om.  For 
omission  of  other  Gk.  codices  cf.  note  on  v.  25.  Bi.  omits  vv.  28-33.  Hoff. 
reads  v.  23  after  v.  28.  MT  Vb:^  =  Vbt!i,  as  MS  Ken.  125.  MT  has  np373r  in 
both  line  a  and  line  b.    Duhm  and  Beer  rd.  for  second  nniSJI  or  ny'lttJ']. 

29.  MT  tDip'Ip\  Rd.  with  MS  Ken.  235  tOipiC'i  "be  "quiet,"  as  Budde, 
Beer  rd.  The  Hiph.  does  not  give  the  meaning  required  by  the  passage. 
MT  yian^  Hit.  Dei.  Stud.  rd.  m'p.  (Isa.  14:16).  MT  Isn^lS';  "behold  him." 
Probably  it  is  better  to  rd.  with  Budde  for  parallelism  ^3'^S!!'']  "reprove  him." 
The  MT  text  appears  a  natural  but  meaningless  conjecture  (cf.  40:1).  Wr. 
reads  ^Sn^P"^  "release  him"  (cf.  11:13;  Est.  7:3).  Duhm  reads  v.  29c  with  v.  30 
and  for  Wn"'  of  MT  nr^  or  'ly;'  (cf.  8:6).  npS"!  is  proposed  in  Kit.  ed. 
Budde  omits  v.  29c  as  a  gloss.  Stud,  and  Hoff.  rd.  vv.  29f.  as  the  objection  of 
an  opponent. 

30.  Vv.  30-33  appear  very  corrupt.  It  is  difficult  to  be  sure  what  the 
exact  form  of  the  text  may  have  been.  MT  Tj'blQ'Q.  Rd.  with  Theo.  Tar. 
Vul.  ^b'Q'a,  as  do  Wr.  Hoff.  Budde.  The  MT  gives  an  almost  impossible 
reading  and  construction.  Apparently  it  is  a  special  case  here  of  God's 
"hiding  his  face."  Budde  suggests  blTTa  before  v.'.306.  MT  DSn .  mi5  is 
omitted  by  Duhm  as  a  gloss.    MT  "^tppjaip  "snares,"  gives  no  sense  here.    Beer 


94  The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches 

31.  Let  him  say  unto  God,  "I  endure — 
I  will  not  again  commit  sin. 

32.  If  I  have  sinned,  do  thou  show  me. 

If  I  have  wrought  evil,  it  shall  be  no  more." 

33.  (Shall  his  requital  be  as  thine  ? 
For  thou  hast  rejected  it. 
Thou  shalt  choose,  not  I, 

And  what  thou  knowest,  speak.) 
35:15.  And  now,  since  he  visiteth  not  his  anger, 
Nor  greatly  regardeth  transgression, — 

suggests  TSpy^.  Wright  mUSp'O  "from  the  lowest  of  the  people."  Rd. 
probably  with  Vul.  {propter  peccata)  (Theo.  avb  dv<TKo\las,  Syr.  i^TSni) 
Cy  ■'^'TpS'Q.  The  reading  has  some  support  and  gives  an  understandable 
sense  to  the  passage. 

31.  MT  "TJa^n.  The  interrogative  H  is  not  in  place  in  the  middle  of  a 
line.  Rd.  probably  "TQSri,  Inf.  Absolute  Niph.  =  Imper.,  which  gives  the 
most  natural  sense  here.  Bi.'  rd.  TDKHp,  Theo.  TQ^H;  so  Duhm,  Beer  rd. 
Ley  reads  vv.  31,  32  TiTHX  ^2  "^  bnS  if.^  ^n^JDH  ^niCTUD  I^S  n'bx  bx  "^D . 
Beer  suggests  "Ta^?  n'bx  bX .  MT  "^nXTp: .  Duhm  reads  Tli?!?':  (cf .  II  Kings 
14:10)  "Ich  habe  mich  iiberhoben."  Beer  suggests  Tli5'4'?S7''°' ■  ^^y  com- 
pares use  of  word  Lev.  5:1,  17;  Num.  5:31;  9:13;  14:34.  Insert  T127  at  the 
end  of  the  verse  from  "^"I^bll  in  v.  32  and  destroy  52  as  dittograph.  Beer 
Duhm  rd.  this.  LXX  Ms'a,  23  rd.  in^bn  with  v.  31.  Sieg.  omits  v.  31  as 
corrupt. 

32.  MT  ntnX  ""nybl,  lit.  "beyond  what  I  see,"  gives  no  suitable  sense 
here  and  the  usage  is  very  peculiar.  Treat  the  phrase  as  suggested  above. 
Rd.  probably  also  (with  Vul.)  TlXtsn  CS  for  parallelism.  The  Syr.  in  v.  31c 
(=v.  32a  of  Heb.  text)  reads  apparently  1X1311  Kb".  Beer  suggests  the 
reading  of  the  Vul.     bir.     Cf.  note  on  34:10. 

3.3.  V.  33  appears  quite  hopelessly  unintelligible  in  its  present  form  and 
no  really  satisfactory  suggestion  has  been  made.  The  first  half  of  the  verse 
is  very  irregular.  MT  TO'sbw.  Possibly  rd.  with  Budde,  Duhm  Dblp"^. 
Sieg.  reads  □"'^bTp.  MT  DDS'a.  Duhm  reads  nDX  ini^iin  ND^  "Dass  er 
verwurfe  sein  Begehren."  Bi.i  supplied  b^  iDm  after  nbs^ .  MT  "^DX  sb . 
Ley  bx  Sb  "Denn  du  verwirfst,  du  wahlest,  aber  nicht  Gott!"  MT  inin, 
Syr.  apparently  reads  in  the  Aram,  sense  "thou  art  tested."  Possibly  this 
should  be  read  in  Niph. 

1.5.  Vv.  15  and  16  of  chap.  35  should  be  read  before  34:34.  They  are  evi- 
dently not  in  place  where  they  are  as  the  introductory  nriyT  and  their  con- 
nection with  36:2  show.  They  are  related  in  style  and  thought  to  chap.  34 
and  may  be  read  very  naturally  before  the  section  34:34-37,  from  which  posi- 
tion they  were  probably  forced  out  before  the  present  insertion  34:28-33. 
Later  a  place  was  found  for  them  in  chap.  35,  just  before  Elihu's  last  speech. 
2  LXX  MSS,  Syr.  Hex.,  Sah.  omit  the  verses  which  are  supplied  from  Theo. 
(cf.  Introduction).  Duhm,  Beer  transpose  v.  16  after  35:8  and  connect  v.  15 
with  36:2.     Bi.  Hatch  omit  vv.  15,  16.     Ley  supplies  TOSn  in  thought  after 


The  Composition  of  the  Elihu  Speeches  95 

16.  Job  openeth  his  mouth  with  vanity, 

And  multipheth  words  without  knowledge. 

34.  Men  of  understanding  will  say  unto  me, 
Yea,  and  the  Wise  Man  who  heareth; 

35.  "Job  hath  spoken  without  knowledge 

And  his  words  are  not  with  understanding." 

36.  But,  verily.  Job  is  tried  unto  the  utmost, 

For  his  answering  as  men  of  evil.  '  • 

37.  He  addeth  transgression  unto  sin; 
He  clappeth  his  hands  among  us, 

And  multiplieth  his  words  against  God. 

nnyi  for  understanding  of  the  passage.  MT  "ip^2  "'^S,  rd.  with  Theo.  Sym. 
npS  rX,  as  do  Hit.  Budde,  Sieg.  Beer.  MT  tJsi'.  The  word  tti  "folly"  is 
found  only  here.  Rd.  with  Theo.  Sym.  Vul.  ytJSn  — Reuss,  Stud.  G.  Hoff. 
Dill.  Baeth.  Duhm,  Beer. 

16.  MT  n3D^  The  Hiph.  "multiply"  is  found  only  here  and  34:37;  also 
36:31  with  the  force  of  a  substantive.  20  MSS  Ken.  Theo.  Sym.  rd.  T^SD^ 
"make  heavy." 

34.  Vv.  15,  16  of  chap.  .35,  having  stated  the  speaker's  verdict  on  Job's 
words,  vv.  34,  35  bring  the  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the  Wise  Men,  parallel 
to  that  in  vv.  2-4. 

35.  nyn  is  used  here  as  10:7;  13:2;  15:2;  33:3;  35:16;  36:12.  Elsewhere 
in  Elihu  "ly"  is  found  32:0;  36:3;  37:16.     b^3t)n,  Inf.  Absolute  (cf.  Jer.  3:15), 

ois.  b^STpn. 

36.  MT  ^SX  is  an  unusual  particle  of  wisViing.  Rd.  rather  with  LXX, 
Sah.  Aeth.  cb^X,  as  do  Sieg.  Bi.  Hitz.  bns?,  Hofif.  "^inX  (Prov.  23:29),  Budde 
(cf.  32:8).  Rd.  "112'^  as  a  simple  Impf.  It  is  usually  read  as  a  wish,  but  the 
particle  is  not  good  support  for  this  reading  and  a  wish  is  rather  out  of  place 
here.  Bi.  reads  ^FQ""  and  omits  127  "Moeht  er  doch  Einfalt  wahlen!" 
Duhm  proposes  "in-T"^  (LXX  fxdde),  "Ach  liespe  sich  doch  Hiob  warnen!"  MT 
■"TCISn .  Rd.  with  MSS  Ken.  89, 95,  LXX  "^TIJ^SD  .  Beer  suggests  this  reading. 
The  sense  is  improved  by  it. 

37.  pDD"'  =  pSil>  27:23  in  meaning.  The  word  means  literally  "strike," 
"smite,"  but  here  one  must  supply,  at  least  in  thought,  TSS  "hands."  The 
expression  is  symbolic  of  mocking.  Ley  omits  v.  376  which  is  too  short  as  it 
stands;  Bi.  Duhm  om.  also,  including  ytJS  of  v.  37a.  MT  l"!^  is  a  poetically 
shortened  form  for  "31"^ . 


VITA 

I,  Helen  Hawley  Nichols,  was  born  in  Garretsville,  Ohio,  Novem- 
ber' 21,  1886.  My  parents  are  John  Richard  Nichols  and  Nellie 
Hawley  Nichols.  I  received  my  early  education  in  the  public 
schools  of  Medina,  Ohio,  and  pursued  my  college  preparatory  course 
at  Marietta  Academy.  In  1902  I  entered  Marietta  College  and 
received  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1906. 

The  years  1906-1908  were  spent  in  graduate  study  at  Bryn  Mawr 
College,  1907-1908  as  Scholar  in  Semitic  Languages  and  Biblical 
Literature.  In  the  spring  of  1908  Bryn  Mawr  College  awarded  me 
the  Mary  E.  Garrett  European  Fellowship,  which  enabled  me  to 
continue  my  studies  in  1908-1909  at  the  Universities  of  Oxford  and 
Marburg.  I  returned  to  Bryn  Mawr  in  the  autumn  of  1909  as 
Scholar  in  Semitic  Languages  and  Biblical  Literature. 

My  major  subject  of  study  has  been  Hebrew,  my  minor  subjects 
Aramaic  and  New  Testament  Greek.  At  Oxford  I  heard  lectures 
under  Professor  Driver,  Professor  Margoliouth,  Professor  Gray, 
and  Mr.  Box.  In  Marburg  my  work  was  carried  on  under  Pro- 
fessor Budde,  Professor  Jiilicher,  Professor  Heitmiiller,  and  Dr. 
Westphal.  My  instructors  at  Bryn  Mawr  have  been  Professor 
Barton  and  Miss  Downing. 

My  dissertation,  presented  to  the  Faculty  of  Byrn  Mawr  College 
in  1910,  was  in  the  Department  of  Hebrew.  It  was  written  under 
the  direction  of  Professor  Barton,  for  whose  unfailing  kindness, 
encouragement,  and  assistance  during  the  entire  course  of  my 
graduate  study  I  desire  to  express  my  deep  gratitude. 


96 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

'  "^     This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


MAK  5  19C0 


aresi 


nj 


■10        i 


'63 


a  - 


"TTEi: 


jurtt^issa,^.  1 


rm 


^Bmkmi 


~     JUL  1  4 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDmBSflMflD 


A 


'•> 


>»  y-.^ 


:4ii^if< 


